Climate Audit

steven mosher

One wonders if this can be true. It can’t be. can it?

From: Phil Jones
To: mann@virginia.edu
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found
another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals
to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

Cheers
Phil

“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John
Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@john-daly.com)
”
Reported with great sadness

Timo H‰meranta
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Timo H‰meranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union

Moderator: timohame@yahoo.co.uk
Private: timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi

Home page: [1]http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm

Moderator of the discussion group “Sceptical Climate Science”
[2]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

“To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination”. (Kari Enqvist)

“If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-

References

1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

TerryMN

mosh – can’t find the link – is it on JeffId’s open letter somewhere?

steven mosher

comment #10
Click you get a zip file

• Calvin Ball
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 3:02 PM | Permalink

  Re: steven mosher (#107),

  I’m starting to think that you got the benefit of a server hiccup. There’s nothing there that I can access in the form of a zip file.

TerryMN

Same here. I’d be gracious to see it at a gmail address called summitepa though 🙂

Tim G

Someone needs to re-post the zip somewhere. I think it has been removed from the original link. At least I cannot find it.

–t

Cold Lynx

It seems to be the real stuff. Just to much specific information to make up
Link

Since it is out on several sites.
62 Mb of zipped files.

Robert E. Phelan

David posted at WUWT the following link. I just downloaded 62 MB of zipped file. If this is a Steve Mosher prank I will track him down in some dark parking lot and eat his heart. If real… Steve, the beer is on me.

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.tomcity.ru%2Fincoming%2Ffree%2FFOI2009.zip

• steven mosher
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 3:37 AM | Permalink

  Re: Robert E. Phelan (#18), hehe. pour beer on yourself

Antonio San

Obviously, Steve has yet to see these postings. Let’s see his reaction first.

RT

From: “Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)”
To: “Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)” , “Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)” , “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)”
Subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:33:16 +0100
Cc: “Summers Brian Mr (REG)” , “Preece Alan Mr (MAC)”

WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means – for the man-in-the street).

Given the fact that this campaign is clearly not going to die down & we now have a silly attempt to escalate it locally (dragging Norfolk’s reputation thro the mud), I have revised my view & feel we do need to pursue the spectator more vigorously. To me, it seems straightforward – Keith has been accused of fraud on an official Spectator website – that is (wharever the legal word is).

Trevor

1256214796.txt

Hoi Polloi

From: Michael Mann
To: Andrew Revkin
Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest….
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

HI Andy,

Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don’t quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically–thanks.

Re, your point at the end–you’ve taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
of this system are not to be trusted.

mike

On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:

thanks heaps.
tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
reviewed lit or shut up. i’m going to post that soon.
just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU … a little unclear . ?
I’m copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions
made over at climateaudit.org…..
I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on
the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge
building happens, would you agree?

p.s. Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) is probably the best person to contact for
further details, in Keith’s absence,

mike

On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:

Hi Andy,

I’m fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and
is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I
have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.

It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some
of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I’m fairly certain the versions of
these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method),
let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature
shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming
is anomalous in a long-term context.

So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn’t matter as far as the key
conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don’t think there is any problem
with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of
this, in Keith’s absence.

if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in
question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our ’98 article in Nature), his
comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic
warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won’t
submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism “published” it will
be in the discredited contrarian home journal “Energy and Environment”. I’m sure you
are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and
the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are
parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections
with the energy industry, and who hasn’t submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer
review.

Fortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?

mike

I’m sure you’re aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is
no

On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:

needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he’s seeking
journal publication for his deconstruct?
—
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax: 509-357-0965
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

—

Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075

503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

“Dire Predictions” book site:

[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

—

Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [6]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [7]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

“Dire Predictions” book site:

[8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

—

Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax: 509-357-0965
[9]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

—
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: [10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

References

Visible links
1. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
2. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
6. mailto:mann@psu.edu
7. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
8. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
9. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

Hidden links:
13. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
14. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

• rod fabian
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

  Re: Hoi Polloi (#25),

  I suppose it goes without saying, but these guys keep insisting that science should be done through the peer review process even while they are moving behind the scenes to manipulate that process, keeping people they regard as skeptics out of it, leaving only those they can trust to be “predictable” in charge of journal publications. The same goes for grant study boards and the like.

  Taken all together, this is a huge indictment of the peer review process. It shows how bogus the claim that the only legitimate way to disseminate science through that process is.

  • bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    Re: rod fabian (#299),
    Mann apparently sought to monopolize control of ALL information flow. Not just through his blog war offensive.

Les Johnson

Good lord. This apparently to Briffa:

I will send you the time series you need in a minute for the Central
west Greenland Stack…
And some other bits and pieces,,, The NGRIP record has the trend in it
that is no doubt closer to the truth for the fixed elevation temperature
history. But even there one could need a correction for elevation
change. The elevation corrected south GRIP Holocene has a very strong
negative delta trend in it and I expect there should be some correction
done to the north GRIP record too,, eventually I think they should all
come out looking like our records from Northern Canada. Now at least
ice core records have some low frequencies to correct… not like your
bloody trees that can not remember one century to the next,,,
(alderheimers )

Robert E. Phelan

Does the person who posted that file at the Russian FTP site have the courage to come forward and identify himself? You can identify yourself to Steve, Anthony, Jeff or Lucia simply by posting a comment with your real e-mail address and asking them to contact you. The rest of us will never know who you are and they will never reveal your identity. But the provenance of this material needs to be proved.

Eric

if it looks to good to be true…

also, even if real, crimes were likely committed in procuring and distributing this material. I suggest everybody take a deep breath and proceed very carefully.

• Dave Thomson
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

  Re: Eric (#135)
  I thought a crime to reveal crimes was called “whistleblowing” and is itself protected by law.

Les Johnson

mann’s code appears to be here.

mbh98-osborn.zip

I also see Yamal, Harry, the whole lot.

Go nuts Steve, Ryan et al. This appears to be a treasure trove.

windansea

Steve at Lucia

Steve McIntyre (Comment#23773)

November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm

I’m having trouble getting into CA right now.

I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it’s over 2000 pages. Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine.

It is really quite breathtaking.

Jean S

Steve, there is a long correspondence between Osborne and Mann about MBH99 confidence intervals… maybe we can finally figure those out!

stumpy

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK

WOW!

Michael Jennings

Folks I would run, not walk, away from this as quickly as possible. To think they would be stupid enough to not cover their tracks on this is not credible IMO. While parts are likely real, some could be added as embellishments meant to create the furor it is already creating in the skeptic community. Let’s not make any judgements on the authenticity until we are sure what we have here is real and not a plant.

• Dave Thomson
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

  Re: Michael Jennings (#145),
  After looking at the files, I agree with Michael. All the file dates in the documents folder have the original dates for the files. This is good for obtaining the data. However, all the email files in the mail folder have had their dates changed artificially to Jan 1, 2009 at 00:00:00. This seems like it was done to hide alterations to some of the files. Be careful reposting the emails.

  • Eric
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    Re: Dave Thomson (#163),

    Nice catch. That casts the emails in a very suspicious light in my opinion.

    There are real people with real reputations and careers at stake who will know the veracity of these emails. Those people are almost certainly reading through this data now and they are going to be very pissed off and even desperate.

    Be very cautious about what you assume and especially what you distribute or publish. Heads are going to roll one way or the other, at this point it is only a matter of whose.

  • Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

    Re: Dave Thomson (#163),

    That might be an artifact of the way the files were lifted, too.

• Luis Dias
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

  Re: Michael Jennings (#145),

  Impossible thing to do. Might as well erase them all, because they will never admit those e-mails are true, and there’s no way to tell them from truth to false. And even the HadCRU will politely ask people to erase these data and anyone who feels in the need to be taken seriously will politely concede.

  So a lot of furor but nothing really substancial. This is the way of the nets. It might be possible that there are some “secret sauces” that might help the community to understand what some papers really did here and there, and what HadCRU is really doing with their data. But I doubt this will happen, and so, big bluster no content.

  The really big consequence of this is that there will be a lot of people really pissed off. I see major heads will roll and many “skeptics” will feel the “revenge”. Just saying, I can almost have a feel of next Gavin’s post.

  This is very serious, folks. And unless there’s a smoking gun somewhere in the database, it will only result in pain. I think this is a bad day overall.

  • Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    Re: Luis Dias (#176),

    Impossible thing to do. Might as well erase them all, because they will never admit those e-mails are true, and there’s no way to tell them from truth to false. And even the HadCRU will politely ask people to erase these data and anyone who feels in the need to be taken seriously will politely concede.

    Not that simple, at least in the US. There are laws about data retention, and if the IT people want to stay out of hot water, even the “deleted” files are archived. It doesn’t matter if the scientists want the data destroyed, they’d have to have complicit IT people to really destroy it.

    If any of it gets subpoenaed, the IT guy is going to save his hide and hand it over.

Punch My Ticket

The sanctity of peer review ..

From: Phil Jones
To: Kevin Trenberth , Grant Foster
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
Date: Wed Aug 5 16:14:34 2009
Cc: “J. Salinger” , James Annan , b.mullan@niwa.co.nz, Gavin Schmidt , Mike Mann , j.renwick@niwa.co.nz

Gentlemen,
I’ve completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries I
hope you can help me with.
…
3) Suggested Reviewers to Include
Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give
an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates,
collaborators, or family members.

From mail/1249503274.txt

• Dave L
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

  Re: Punch My Ticket (#146),

  So that is how peer review is conducted in climate science. Recommend your “unbiased” buddies. This may have reprocussions beyond CRU …. and taint such “peer review” journals such as Nature and Science.

  The word that is one everyone’s lips is: CONSPIRACY.

Gregory Heines

From a file called Greenpeace.txt :

X-NCUSER: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Received: from [139.222.230.4] (helo=mailgate4.uea.ac.uk)
by mailserver1.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
id 13izk7-0000fg-00
for f030@smtp.uea.ac.uk; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:55 +0100
Received: from [24.132.28.8] (helo=fw.greenpeace.org)
by mailgate4.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
id 13izk4-001GlN-00
for m.kelly@uea.ac.uk; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:46:55 +0100
Received: (from root@localhost) by fw.greenpeace.org (8.9.1a/8.6.12) id PAA07053 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:46:48 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: by fw.greenpeace.org via smap (V1.3)
id sma006373; Tue, 10 Oct 00 15:45:28 +0200
Received: from mail3.uk.gl3 (mail.uk.gl3 [192.168.244.10])
by bb.uk.gl3 (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28271
for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:44:44 +0100
Message-Id:
Received: from dial01.uk.gl3 by mail3.uk.gl3 with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1460.8)
id T466PKG6; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:39:40 +0100
From: “paul horsman”
To: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: climate negotiations/wto etc.
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Status: O

Hi Mick,

It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular
thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?

All the best,

Paul

—————
Paul V. Horsman
Oil Campaigner
Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
Greenpeace,
Canonbury Villas
London N1 2PN
Tel: +44 171 865 8286
Fax: +44 171 865 8201
Mob: +44 7801 212990

This is really fishy in its brazen and open questioning of globalization. Seems fake.

Howard S.

Might as well cancel Copenhagen.

vjones

I find this really quite shocking and disturbing. I mean it is one thing to think that such subversion is going on; it is quite another thing – if this is all undoctored – to read it. I don’t know whether to be elated (as a skeptic) or a little sad that this will reflect badly on science regardless.

Hoystory

IANAL, but my previous career in journalism and understanding of media law has prepared me to tell you this:

For those of you worried about legal ramifications for yourself if you download the file or for Steve or anyone else here — don’t worry. As long as you weren’t the one doing the hacking yourself or you didn’t pay someone to do the hacking, accessing the data and publishing is not illegal — at least in the U.S.

John G. Bell

Here is a good one.

From:
Phil Jones
To:
mann@virginia.edu
CC:
“raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Date:
Mon Feb 21 10:28:32 2005

Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
———————-8<———————-

I think the word got out :).

Gregor L

I posted an equivalent comment to this on another message board. But here’s the gist of it. If the very incriminating sounding quote below:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.”

is in fact real, then it should be possible to obtain the data, the respective journal articles, the temperature data, and see if in fact this is what occurred. I do not know how hard that would be to do at this point, but it would certainly be a good check. I have concerns like others that this entire archive may be a “spiked” version of an otherwise legitimate (hacked) archive … but much of my concern is driven by the fact that I assume that things can’t be this blatant.

HarryG

If it seems to good to be true – then there is a high probability that it is.

Can we all take a lie down and wait for confirmation – please.

Al

how right you seem to have been with “team”

At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

thanks David – lets see what others think. I agree, that we don’t want to be seen as
being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was “likely” the
warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that
it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that
said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about
1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence.

any other thoughts team?

Howard S.

IMO this is

The Swindle Exposed

Dave Thomson

I retract my previous statement about the validity of the data files. Several of the data files have artificially changed dates, too. It’s best to have a file forensics expert look at this package before doing anything with it.

• Calvin Ball
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

  Re: Dave Thomson (#167),

  Agreed that a database person needs to say if any of this is suspicious. However, Steve M is already on record saying that all of the correspondence with him is 100% accurate. So this isn’t simply fabricated. The dangling question is has it been tweaked.

Steve

I’m not going to bother posting the entire email since this is still at the “too good to be true” stage, but for those of you already perusing the zip…

Read “1047390562.txt”, an (alleged) email file from March 2003. I am disturbed by, “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor….It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.”

• pat michaels
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

  Re: Steve (#169),

  Yes, I thought this was going to come up! There is no way this one is a fake. WAY too many details. Again, I am having some trouble with the file, but if someone will post any follow-ons on the strongarming of Climate Research because they published some papers of mine, I’d like to see!

  Pat Michaels

  • Greg F
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

    Re: pat michaels (#174),

    Pat,

    I would be happy to send a copy of the files to you. If you want send an email to:

    verynice at mail.com

• Ryan O
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:56 PM | Permalink

  Re: Steve (#169), Nah, that email is legit. It was in reference to that Soon paper, which was published in Climate Research where deFrietas was an editor. After that, deFrietas was pressured to leave (several of the editors resigned). More recently, deFrietas one of the coauthors of the McLean, Carter, deFrietas paper on ENSO earlier this year (a piece of crap, TBH).
  .
  deFrietas is well-known by the Team. That email about him is quite legit.

Ryan O

Guys, the reason for the dates may simply be due to whatever program was used to convert from the native email format to text. While not necessarily the case, the dates may indicate nothing amiss at all. 😉

• Kevin
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:01 PM | Permalink

  Re: Ryan O (#170),
  I agree. While it’s best to be skeptical at this point, the altered file dates aren’t necessarily indicative of changes to the content. Changing the file creation dates could simply be a means of preventing the hackers’ identities from being determined by checking the server logs.

• Dave Thomson
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:08 PM | Permalink

  Re: Ryan O (#170),
  Ryan, that was my first thought, too. But then why the Jan 1, 2009 date. After I noticed only selected folders and files in the document folder have the same date, whereas others appear to have their last creation date, I’m quite certain those files were at least opened by the mystery person. If the files were merely opened, and not altered, they should have been closed with a more recent date. It is easy to force a different date while zipping the file, which appears to be the case. The question is, why was the date changed to Jan 1, 2009?

  The files still may be genuine, but there is sufficient cause to exercise caution. It is one thing to trash someone’s career based on solid evidence, it is another thing entirely to trash it on questionable evidence. Whether we like the warmers’ ideas, or not, we must respect their basic rights of innocence until proven guilty. If they are found guilty by “peer review” :-), then feed them to the dogs, but not until then.

  • Ryan O
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:20 PM | Permalink

    Re: Dave Thomson (#181), Oh, I agree . . . what needs to be done is to force UEA’s IT department to confirm the authenticity (or show that content has been altered). Not sure what the best way is to force that to happen.

Gregor L

Pat,

I have them downloaded and did a search on you and have a whole bunch of them organized by that. No surprise, you are not mentioned positively in any of them that I have read so far. I can’t figure out how to get them to you, though, without public email exposure of my address. Do you have a public email I can send them to?

• pat michaels
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

  Re: Gregor L (#172),

  pmichaels@cato.org

  thx

John G. Bell

I don’t see how the emails could have been collected without the use of a national agency. So I see it as a great joke. The span of time is impressive also. 1996 to a week ago.

If this is real it is a team effort of some sort.

theduke

I’m thinking it’s authentic. I suppose someone associated with the Team could be playing an elaborate trick on skeptics and luke-warmers, but why invest all that effort and to what end? I suppose there could be a Merry Prankster among the dullards there, but I doubt it.

If it is authentic, I doubt you will find manufactured bogus material. Seems to me that the person(s?) doing this has a clear purpose and would not compromise the full product by altering documents for affect.

crosspatch

There would be no need to change the file modification date to cover tampering. If one can set the date to Jan 1, 2009, then they can set them to whatever date they want. They could have modified the file and reset the file modification time to whatever.

On a unix system of most any flavor or a PC running cygwin: man touch

Not worried about 2009-01-01

… and to restore the file time stamps, run this on unix/linux:

% for f in *.txt; do touch -d @`basename $f .txt` $f; done

Watcher

I grep’ed the emails for McIntyre and got lots of hits. Thought it might help speed up the review process if folks could pick a few to investigate and mark off the list. If the post is too long please feel free to delete. Based on the sheer number of times he’s mentioned, I’d say he must be getting under their skin.

Plain | File contents  | File names  | Line numbers  | Whole line  | Word wrap | Fixed Font | Match window: +/- 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 lines

C:\FOIA\mail\1067522573.txt
00012: The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771) claims to
00015: in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick (“MM”) have done no such
00024: entirely spurious results provided in the McIntyre and McKitrick article were ever allowed

C:\FOIA\mail\1067596623.txt
00165: The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter MM03) claims

C:\FOIA\mail\1068239573.txt
00003: Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
00010: >To: Steve McIntyre
00011: >Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
00057: >Steve McIntyre wrote:

C:\FOIA\mail\1068652882.txt
00009: you will have seen Stephen McIntyre’s request to us. We need to talk about
00015: McIntyre, requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms). I do
00022: Anyway, because McIntyre has now asked Mann directly for his data and
00023: programs, his request that *we* send McIntyre’s request to Mann has been
00034: >From: “Steve McIntyre”
00098: >data to the file pcproxy.txt emailed to one of us (McIntyre) in April
00172: >Stephen McIntyre Ross McKitrick

C:\FOIA\mail\1075750656.txt
00003: Subject: Re[2]: Stephen McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1075768111.txt
00003: Subject: Re[2]: Stephen McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1075836638.txt
00003: Subject: Re[3]: Stephen McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1075931629.txt
00003: Subject: Re[4]: Stephen McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1076083097.txt
00018: McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1076336623.txt
00008: Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about Law Dome
00050: between Steve McIntyre and myself. He has been asking for LD data for a while (since
00056: Anyway, I am aware of McIntyre’s controversial history and am trying to handle things in
00082: To: ‘Steve McIntyre’
00115: From: Steve McIntyre [[6]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
00120: printed as a graphic. Is this one available? Regards, Steve McIntyre
00124: To: [8]’Steve McIntyre’
00153: From: Steve McIntyre [[10]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
00166: Stephen McIntyre
00184: 6. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
00186: 8. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
00188: 10. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

C:\FOIA\mail\1076359809.txt
00044: From: “Steve McIntyre”
00051: at Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:02:13 -0500
00055: of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1079108576.txt
00167: >> McIntyre and Mckitrick doesn’t faze these people. They just shift

C:\FOIA\mail\1083962092.txt
00010: McIntyre asking me for paleo data series I don’t have (I’m not going to reply, by the way

C:\FOIA\mail\1083962601.txt
00014: Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything,

C:\FOIA\mail\1090610951.txt
00152: McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2003): Corrections to the Mann et al

C:\FOIA\mail\1102956436.txt
00017: and the specific discrediting of the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, based both on our
00024: the McIntyre and Mckitrick matter, and the von Storch matter,

C:\FOIA\mail\1102956446.txt
00003: Subject: email #2: paper in review in J. Climate (as a letter), discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick
00008: IPCC draft purposes. They basically show that the McIntyre and McKitrick paper is total

C:\FOIA\mail\1104855751.txt
00025: McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on
00044: From: “Steve McIntyre”
00063: Regards, Steve McIntyre
00068: From: [1]Steve McIntyre
00079: mischaracterizations regarding criticisms we (McIntyre and McKitrick) made of Mann et
00084: First, Rutherford et al. states that McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] used an incorrect
00098: After publication of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003], Mann said that dataset at his FTP
00159: Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
00195: 1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

C:\FOIA\mail\1104893567.txt
00076: The primary criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on the

C:\FOIA\mail\1106322460.txt
00003: Subject: Re: Fwd: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
00148: >> > 2004GL021750 McIntyre
00156: >> > Thread-Topic: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre
00183: >> > reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor

C:\FOIA\mail\1107899057.txt
00032: The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this

C:\FOIA\mail\1109018144.txt
00026: I was surprised to see comments from you in WSJ saying that McIntyre and

C:\FOIA\mail\1109021312.txt
00052: But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre
00118: Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and
00205: But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre says
00214: McIntyre’s, although they never state this. Mann and Schmidt go to great lengths in
00307: Steve McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1114607213.txt
00008: McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data – sent ages ago. I’ll
00034: Regards, Steve McIntyre
00063: However, this is precisely the problem that Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run
00066: For example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Mann’s FTP
00071: Not only has this been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards to

C:\FOIA\mail\1122669035.txt
00036: curve? I understand that studies by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
00065: the AR4 in 2007. This includes the McIntyre and McKitrick papers as well as papers that
00066: report results contrary to McIntyre/McKitrick, such as the paper in press by Wahl and

C:\FOIA\mail\1123163394.txt
00125: happens to discredit most of the McIntyre and McKitrick claims.

C:\FOIA\mail\1123622471.txt
00030: We can revisit this , and the issue of McIntyre and McKitrick (centering of PCs in Mann et

C:\FOIA\mail\1127614205.txt
00053: Steve McIntyre (a name that should ring a bell) regarding unpublished literature in
00071: I am attaching the correspondence with McIntyre below for your information but the only
00073: with McIntyre from here.
00089: From: Steve McIntyre [1]
00120: Thank you for your attention, Steve McIntyre
00126: To: [6]Steve McIntyre
00129: Dear Dr McIntyre,
00137: Steve McIntyre wrote:
00147: To: [8]Steve McIntyre
00150: Dear Mr McIntyre,
00166: Steve McIntyre wrote:
00185: Stephen McIntyre
00288: 1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
00293: 6. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
00295: 8. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

C:\FOIA\mail\1128000000.txt
00003: Subject: McIntyre and D’Arrigo et al (submitted)
00011: and Peck’s benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre
00016: I think this is an abuse of McIntyre’s position as an IPCC reviewer.
00045: >others. McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper
00053: >still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to
00056: >The conditions which McIntyre (and all other IPCC reviewers) agreed
00099: >>>From: “Steve McIntyre”
00100: >>><stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca>
00225: >>>Stephen McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1132094873.txt
00039: a while back when McIntyre first raised it and were quite satisfied with the published
00044: not sure if you guys are aware, McIntyre presented this poster at the CCSP meeting.
00053: Stephen McIntyre, stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
00117: 2. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

C:\FOIA\mail\1133360497.txt
00003: Subject: Re: IPCC ref. regarding McIntyre and McKitrick
00015: >response from McIntyre and McKitrick, but that should now move
00025: >principle components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and

C:\FOIA\mail\1136918726.txt
00054: > submitted Brief Communication By McIntyre and McKitric . I have been
00062: > response to McIntyre and McKitric , but I would prefer if you would

C:\FOIA\mail\1138042050.txt
00014: matters are being followed closely by McIntyre (see:
00066: McIntyre’s criticisms. Caspar thought, and I agree, that we need to bring this stuff

C:\FOIA\mail\1139521913.txt
00010: put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre
00025: forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our

C:\FOIA\mail\1139835663.txt
00019: McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the

C:\FOIA\mail\1139923663.txt
00014: Science. In my view the McIntyre criticisms are weak and disingenous.But
00043: >> McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I
00057: >> forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use

C:\FOIA\mail\1141068509.txt
00016: Rosanne is presenting at this NAS meeting on Thursday which McIntyre is obviously going to
00043: We didn’t use Jaemtland and you did, that is why McIntyre suggested
00069: >questions/requests from McIntyre about our paper that they’d like our

C:\FOIA\mail\1141393414.txt
00085: >>>McIntyre and McKittrick were there, and seem

C:\FOIA\mail\1141737742.txt
00020: Dr. McIntyre, which we forwarded to you: it was quite satisfactory, we
00022: Dr. McIntyre. I hope that this will be the end of this episode, but if
00057: system of Steve McIntyre’s email.
00130: Because Steve McIntyre has explicitly stated that he is unable to
00166: >We have just received an email from Steve McIntyre (pasted below),
00189: >*******START OF EMAIL FROM S. MCINTYRE*********
00417: >Stephen McIntyre
00419: >********END OF EMAIL FROM S. MCINTYRE**********

C:\FOIA\mail\1141930111.txt
00025: McIntyre is determined and the blog does influence people, unfortuately
00053: >lot by media and McIntyre has immediate access to the international media

C:\FOIA\mail\1142314357.txt
00029: and it plays unfairly into McIntyre’s hand. I almost admit to being very irritated that

C:\FOIA\mail\1146062963.txt
00013: respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you
00033: > McIntyre. We should have got this organised a bit quicker but we will
00044: >> To: “Steve McIntyre”
00077: >> At 19:37 18/04/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote:
00085: >>> Schweingruber network at WDCP. Regards, Steve McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1147435800.txt
00024: >From: “Steve McIntyre”
00057: >Steve McIntyre
00066: >To: Steve McIntyre
00098: >At 19:37 18/04/2006, Steve McIntyre wrote:
00105: > >Schweingruber network at WDCP. Regards, Steve McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1151689605.txt
00129: above. McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a,d) showed that the pre-1450 RE
00137: portion) is -0.08 (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005c), and the RE
00139: implementation of the Mann code (McIntyre and McKitrick 2005d). The

C:\FOIA\mail\1153470204.txt
00020: I did not get into suggesting how that paragraph might otherwise be rewritten. You can see more generally where Caspar and I have gone in the attached text, and how our work relates generally to the MM, von Storch, etc. “examinations” of MBH. Thinking further, the “Validation Thresholds and Measures of Merit” and “Amplitude Issues” sections might also be well worth a look. The former will help you see how over-strong and one-sided are the arguments Steven McIntyre puts forth in this area. (Cf. Wahl-Ammann Appendix 1 also on this topic — McIntyre strongly avoids, or simply chastizes as ad hoc, the false negative issues at lower frequencies that we raise concerning the use of r2.) He has done with the IPCC just what he did in reviewing the Wahl-Ammann paper–and indeed in all his efforts–write volumes of very strongly worded, one-sided critiques, which can take a lot of time to see through and then respond to. I hope what we have written can help you in this way. I note that Mike Mann, Richard Alley, and others have written response comments, which would be useful for getting perspective also.

C:\FOIA\mail\1154697504.txt
00003: Subject: McIntyre, McKitrick & MITRIE …
00011: all of you to the section about McIntyre&McKitrick vs Mann et al. I am
00200: > %%directed at them (mainly MBH1999) by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003] and others.
00260: > in more detail in the context of criticism by \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003}
00749: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2003} [MM2003]
00787: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} [MM2005] continue the criticism of the techniques
00822: > They find the impact of the modifications suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick to
00824: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005b} clarify their original claim, stating that the
00829: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} [MM2005c] revisit the MM2003 work and correct
01658: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005c} assert that the fact that omission of data
01676: > \citet{mcintyre_mckitrick2005a} (hereafter MM2005).
01848: Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\McIntyre2003.pdf”

C:\FOIA\mail\1155402164.txt
00220: > > >McIntyre claims in one (more?) of his comments, is neither logical

C:\FOIA\mail\1155832288.txt
00010: Due to the ongoing debate, this has turned an even more difficult manuscript. In general, I think Martin did a very good job in the review of the literature. Concerning the new reconstructions and the evaluation of McIntyre work, I would not fully agree with some of the conclusions, which I thin do not follow from the material presented in the text. I have some remarks on this which you may consider useful. But I think that I am not the one that should give the manuscript the final shape, as Martin is the person in charge of the project. Please, consider the following comments as suggestions.

C:\FOIA\mail\1163715685.txt
00258: > > meant “don’t use bristlecones”, as he is quoted by McIntyre. I
00295: > > McIntyre hasn’t come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more

C:\FOIA\mail\1163771694.txt
00252: > > meant “don’t use bristlecones”, as he is quoted by McIntyre. I
00289: > > McIntyre hasn’t come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more

C:\FOIA\mail\1164059987.txt
00011: > I’m involved in a discussion with Stephen McIntyre about Bristlecone pines,

C:\FOIA\mail\1164120712.txt
00110: > meant “don’t use bristlecones”, as he is quoted by McIntyre. I believe
00138: > McIntyre hasn’t come up with much yet. I need to read up a bit more on

C:\FOIA\mail\1171550268.txt
00012: McIntyre´s blog.

C:\FOIA\mail\1177158252.txt
00019: How about “I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but

C:\FOIA\mail\1177423054.txt
00100: >>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn’t have

C:\FOIA\mail\1177534709.txt
00154: >>>>> McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn’t have

C:\FOIA\mail\1182342470.txt
00042: From: “Steve McIntyre” [1]
00086: Regards, Steve McIntyre
00091: To: “Steve McIntyre” [5]
00162: 1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca
00166: 5. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

C:\FOIA\mail\1182346299.txt
00078: >> >>From: “Steve McIntyre”
00130: >> >>Regards, Steve McIntyre
00134: >> > To: “Steve McIntyre”

C:\FOIA\mail\1182361058.txt
00008: Glad I can help, even if quite indirectly. I know what you mean about the need for community when under duress. The individual quality of being a scientist works against us in this way. Attached are the original letter and the official UCAR response. I don’t know what the lawyers might have written, other than their input to the official response letter. I do know they sought information from Caspar (and myself, but less so). I don’t recall if we made available to them our correspondance with Steve Schneider about our responses to the review of WA that McIntyre did, which had a lot of information in it that debunked his claims about withholding contrary results, etc, etc.. In fact, we have never mentioned this to Steve, to make sure that he was in the situation to make editorial decisions as focused soley on the science as possible.
00060: From: “Steve McIntyre”
00083: Regards, Steve McIntyre
00088: To: “Steve McIntyre”

C:\FOIA\mail\1188412866.txt
00037: [2][1] McIntyre S. (19 July 2006), Submission to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
00039: sworn statement by McIntyre. [It is available at
00040: [3]http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pd
00130: 3. http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/McIntyre.pdf

C:\FOIA\mail\1189722851.txt
00069: You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it

C:\FOIA\mail\1189797973.txt
00028: McIntyre and McKitrick’s claims in no uncertain terms, referencing the Wahl and Ammann work
00030: McIntyre and McKitrick only failed to reproduce the reconstruction because of multiple

C:\FOIA\mail\1196872660.txt
00036: Re, Loehle, McIntyre. Funny–w/ each awful paper E&E publishes, McIntyre realizes that
00050: that McIntyre is trying to distance himself from some of these E&E articles by

C:\FOIA\mail\1200493432.txt
00025: mainly because of McIntyre). I told him all this as well when we met at a meeting of

C:\FOIA\mail\1209474516.txt
00011: McIntyre seems to be sending it everywhere. Dave Thompson is

C:\FOIA\mail\1212088415.txt
00013: Climate Audit are an odd crowd. McIntyre is claiming that he spotted the problem

C:\FOIA\mail\1212587222.txt
00023: From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
00029: Steve McIntyre
00091: 1. mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca

C:\FOIA\mail\1214228874.txt
00024: I’m not even sure if you sent me or Keith anything, despite McIntyre’s conviction! But

C:\FOIA\mail\1225140121.txt
00013: on the paper is in touch with McIntyre.

C:\FOIA\mail\1225462391.txt
00008: Dear folks, While on travel in Hawaii, I received a request from Steven McIntyre for all of
00010: my PCMDI colleagues, I have decided not to respond to McIntyre’s request. If McIntyre
00014: climate model and radiosonde data). If Mr. McIntyre wishes to “audit” our analysis and
00018: that McIntyre is the guy who “audited” the temperature reconstructions of Mike Mann and
00019: colleagues. Now it appears as if McIntyre wants to audit us. McIntyre should have “audited”
00034: stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca using -f Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov
00048: -0400 From: “Steve McIntyre” To: Subject: Santer et al 2008 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:29:11
00069: Steve McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1226337052.txt
00002: To: Steve McIntyre
00009: Dear Mr. McIntyre,
00044: Steve McIntyre wrote:
00045: > Could you please reply to the request below, Regards, Steve McIntyre
00048: > *From:* Steve McIntyre [mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca]
00063: > Steve McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1226451442.txt
00011: Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre’s twin requests under
00012: the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre’s request (1),
00017: As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
00020: are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
00023: Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
00034: McIntyre’s request (2) demands “any correspondence concerning these
00042: have no idea why McIntyre’s request for email correspondence has a
00046: and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
00047: justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
00057: frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
00058: McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
00064: Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
00069: McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
00072: In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
00075: send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the
00078: future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
00084: from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
00094: subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s
00110: > From: Steve McIntyre
00222: > Stephen McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1226456830.txt
00032: > Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre’s twin requests under
00033: > the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre’s request (1),
00038: > As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
00041: > are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
00044: > Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
00055: > McIntyre’s request (2) demands “any correspondence concerning these
00063: > have no idea why McIntyre’s request for email correspondence has a
00067: > and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
00068: > justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
00078: > frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
00079: > McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
00085: > Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
00090: > McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
00093: > In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
00096: > send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the
00099: > future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
00105: > from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
00115: > subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s
00131: >> From: Steve McIntyre
00243: >> Stephen McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1226500291.txt
00025: Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre’s twin requests under the Freedom of
00026: Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre’s request (1), no “monthly time series of
00029: As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the
00031: Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr.
00032: McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper
00034: McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged
00041: McIntyre’s request (2) demands “any correspondence concerning these monthly time series
00047: publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre’s request for
00051: unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or
00052: explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy
00059: time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme
00060: irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
00064: I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and
00065: his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the
00068: conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre;
00071: In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I
00073: As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since
00076: McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about
00080: LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that
00088: McIntyre’s “ClimateAudit” website.
00099: From: Steve McIntyre
00161: Stephen McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1228249747.txt
00013: one can appear to applaud McIntyre at first, but then go on to
00060: > McIntyre’s discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
00061: > about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
00076: > regarding McIntyre’s data request, and would note that:
00080: > freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us,
00083: > Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data
00092: > Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived quantities

C:\FOIA\mail\1228258714.txt
00036: specifically related to McIntyre.
00053: > McIntyre’s discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
00054: > about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
00069: > regarding McIntyre’s data request, and would note that:
00073: > freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us,
00076: > Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data
00085: > Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived quantities

C:\FOIA\mail\1228330629.txt
00056: damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he
00057: requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m
00061: McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for
00062: further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: “You
00070: with the likes of Steven McIntyre.

C:\FOIA\mail\1228412429.txt
00117: >>provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to
00118: >>McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m convinced
00122: >>has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies
00124: >>further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully
00135: >>Steven McIntyre.

C:\FOIA\mail\1228922050.txt
00012: this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t
00021: McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but requests and responses
00024: McIntyre. Others here came from Eschenbach and also Douglas Keenan.
00029: The recent couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at least two
00081: received from Steven McIntyre?

C:\FOIA\mail\1229468467.txt
00015: words, although prompted by McIntyre’s request, you will
00032: Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list
00035: crucial for McIntyre to state specifically what he wants.
00048: > I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made
00050: > (FOIA). McIntyre asked for “Monthly average T2LT values for the 47
00055: > McIntyre’s request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear
00060: > McIntyre’s request is poorly-formulated and misleading. As noted in the
00061: > Santer et al. paper cited by McIntyre, we examined “a set of 49
00063: > different models”. McIntyre confuses the number of 20th century
00066: > mistake does not inspire one with confidence about McIntyre’s
00084: > Contact” that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly
00088: > misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others.
00092: > McIntyre’s FOIA request to DOE. This will make it difficult for McIntyre
00096: > to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the

C:\FOIA\mail\1231257056.txt
00007: “Thanks” Ben for this, hi all and happy new year. I had a similar experience–but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change are a private institution–with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have the Mann et al cohort publish all their computer codes for papers published in Climatic Change. I put the question to the editorial board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that scientists should give enough information on their data sources and methods so others who are scientifically capable can do their own brand of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented sub routines etc. It would be odious requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not in the business of producing software products for general consumption and have no resources to do so. The NSF, which funded the studies I published, concurred–so that ended that issue with Climatic Change at the time a few years ago.
00066: Neither Mr. Smith nor Mr. Stephen McIntyre (Mr. McIntyre is the
00100: valid scientific discovery. Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests to DOE and NOAA
00102: McIntyre has targeted scientists at Penn State University, the U.K.
00105: denominator is that Mr. McIntyre’s attention is directed towards studies
00113: McGregor (the Chief Editor of the IJoC) provided Mr. McIntyre with the
00126: synthetic MSU temperatures that were the subject of Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA
00128: not requested by Mr. McIntyre). These datasets have been through
00137: resolve these problems. If Mr. McIntyre’s past performance is a guide to

C:\FOIA\mail\1232064755.txt
00014: McIntyre’s request to the U.S. Dept. of Energy/National Nuclear Security
00017: by Mr. McIntyre. These synthetic MSU datasets are available on PCMDI’s
00037: requests from Mr. McIntyre. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests

C:\FOIA\mail\1233245601.txt
00010: Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
00011: to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He
00019: It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre’s paper for review.
00020: Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the

C:\FOIA\mail\1233326033.txt
00011: McIntyre had access to all of the primary model and observational data
00013: would have required Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was
00023: employed. They did what Mr. McIntyre was unwilling to do – they
00034: Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the
00036: randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose not
00042: provide data to Mr. McIntyre. You made your complaint on the basis of
00043: the information available on Mr. McIntyre’s blog. You did not understand
00056: post it on Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

C:\FOIA\mail\1233586975.txt
00040: > CA including McIntyre didn’t seem to accept or realise this.

C:\FOIA\mail\1245943185.txt
00060:

C:\FOIA\mail\1250169233.txt
00008: See the attached – odd quote by McIntyre in the middle of this

C:\FOIA\mail\1252154659.txt
00025: There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:
00049: (5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
00054: Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
00067: The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.

C:\FOIA\mail\1252164302.txt
00050: There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:
00070: (5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
00075: to proceed? Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
00084: The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.

C:\FOIA\mail\1252233095.txt
00011: In his e-mail to me, McIntyre requested the annual data that we say are not publicly
00067: There’s other criticisms that have come up by McIntyre’s group:
00091: (5) McIntyre wrote to me to request the annual data series that we used to calculate the
00096: Should I forward the annual data to McIntyre?
00109: The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.

C:\FOIA\mail\1253631628.txt
00028: is the paper of Caspar’s (with Doug Nychka) that shows > that McIntyre is wrong? Are there
00077: that McIntyre is wrong? Are there other papers I should see/cite

C:\FOIA\mail\1254175144.txt
00008: context to the latest McIntyre meme.

C:\FOIA\mail\1254230232.txt
00010: you’re fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre has done is going to be difficult.
00020: standardized – corridor method. I also don’t think McIntyre understands the RCS method even
00049: thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
00063: McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be

C:\FOIA\mail\1254258663.txt
00003: Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest….
00024: with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
00027: if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question.
00033: McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate
00046: picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements

C:\FOIA\mail\1254259645.txt
00003: Subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest….
00017: scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
00025: tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
00031: the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
00057: with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
00061: if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in
00067: are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
00086: picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements

C:\FOIA\mail\1254323180.txt
00016: congress this summer. It isn’t coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick E&E
00099: thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
00113: McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be

C:\FOIA\mail\1254345174.txt
00024: McIntyre and McKitrick E&E paper w/ press release came out the day before the U.S.
00100: thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
00114: McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be

C:\FOIA\mail\1254409004.txt
00013: also picked up in the bit we’ll post that McIntyre has put in the caveats but lets others

C:\FOIA\mail\1254501801.txt
00033: >data file was a consequence of requests from McIntyre to get the data.

C:\FOIA\mail\1254746802.txt
00042: McIntyre that the data used by Mann to “prove” the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
00051: “Please note: Steve McIntyre’s post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
00101: I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross

C:\FOIA\mail\1254751382.txt
00228: required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated
00442: century,” wrote Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre on his blog on
00447: McIntyre’s determination to reproduce the reconstructions has
00473: McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and
00492: Beginning in 2003, I worked with Stephen McIntyre to replicate a
00588: Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre’s repeated
00687: those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who
00758: McIntyre has
00766: began to crumble when Mr. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of Guelph
00769: As Ross McKitrick explains in his op-ed, Steve McIntyre has
01066: last week with statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting access to
01072: Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking
01079: used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
01081: Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics
01089: the methodology used – as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these
01091: scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data.
01093: were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they
01109: scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
01112: McIntyre is
01114: [1] Yamal: A “Divergence” Problem, by Steve McIntyre, 27

C:\FOIA\mail\1254754536.txt
00029: McIntyre that the data used by Mann to “prove” the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
00038: “Please note: Steve McIntyre’s post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
00088: I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross

C:\FOIA\mail\1254756944.txt
00041: explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And

C:\FOIA\mail\1254832684.txt
00014: Here is what Stephen McIntyre says on Climate Audit.
00018: McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC

C:\FOIA\mail\1256214796.txt
00007: WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means – for the man-in-the street).
00048: >McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth
00052: >analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre’s selection produces

C:\FOIA\mail\1256735067.txt
00065: I’ll let you make up you own minds! It seems to me as though McIntyre cherry picked for
00071: McIntyre knows that the millennial temperature record is pretty robust, otherwise he

C:\FOIA\mail\1256747199.txt
00012: Also McIntyre had the Yamal data in Feb 2004 – although he seems to have forgotten this.
00013: Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was

C:\FOIA\mail\1256760240.txt
00008: person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.
00052: more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre

C:\FOIA\mail\1256765544.txt
00093: >their lives and McIntyre has stated several times
00121: > 2. McIntyre was sent the data for Yamal by our
00167: >Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross McKitrick
00204: >statistician Steve McIntyre finally getting
00210: > Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data –
00218: >used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
00221: > Mr McIntyre has previously showed
00228: >claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same
00229: >scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all
00231: >data available to Mr McIntyre after they
00251: >scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.
00255: >UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.
00258: >Steve McIntyre, 27 September 2009
00338: >researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested
00340: >McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information
00344: >temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t
00352: >the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested

Steve Geiger

Wow, Mr. McIntyre was certainly on their minds A BUNCH. Very hard to believe at this point that this is a hoax….who would have the time, knowledge, access AND intent to pull that off(?)

theduke

I had to clean the spray (red wine) off my computer screen after reading this one:

“In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science.”

Bill Jamison

As someone once said “You can’t make this stuff up!”. That certainly rings true here.

Plainview

noticed that the initial heads-up was posted 11/17, 10th anniversary of Fight Club. Coincidence?!

ianl8888

I repeat – WHERE is a link that actually works ?

#119 Cold Lynx was truncated about 1/3rd through download and is no longer accessible

#121 is dead

#152 just leads to some self-congratulatory smart-assery

Until the actual data is available, this is a HOAX

WHY is this so difficult ??

crosspatch

The link is now being reported as dead. The md5sum of the original file is da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4 and I expect someone will have it on a torrent soon if it isn’t already. But if you get a different md5sum, then the file has been modified. That sum was independently generated by at least three different people downloading the file from the original link.

• ianl8888
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

  Re: crosspatch (#105),

  Thanks, but you know, this doesn’t help at all

  • Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:20 PM | Permalink

    Re: ianl8888 (#112),

    Try WUWT. I think there’s another server there.

D MacKenzie

I’ve just managed to download from the originally posted site (via NZ) and get the same md5sum value as crosspatch above and what was posted earlier at WUWT. Perhaps it’s just overloaded?

It’s all pretty exciting, hopefully its not just some elaborate ruse where all the team members are sitting back and chuckling over their beers watching the ‘skeptics’ fall over themselves with it…

John Norris

The words redemption and congratulations come to mind.

Most CA readers just knew all of this was going on behind the scenes; but somehow it is still shocking when you see it.

I feel like I have viewed the hockey team movie here on CA over the last three years, but now the book is available, free online. And lo and behold the movie pretty much captured the essence of the characters, and was true to the facts in the book. Congratulations for sticking to your guns and believing that a reasoned, ethical approach would eventually disclose reality.

M Yoxon

Pretty extraordinary. Better than Grisham? You bet it is. Can’t wait to see the response at realclimate.

Michael R

As on WUWT I have posted another link to the file

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T

There are also several other readers who have posted copies

http://rapidshare.com/files/309496568/FOI2009.zip.html
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

• ianl8888
  Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:25 AM | Permalink

  Re: Michael R (#116),

  Thank you very much !! MegaUpload link works OK

jeez

Alternate download locations:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY

A torrent file:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

John A

Like many others I am stunned by the content of the e-mails but very skeptical because I cannot verify its provenance. Has someone asked the people mentioned whether this archive is genuine?

• davidc
  Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 12:13 AM | Permalink

  Re: John A (#118),

  If they are not you would think that the alleged authors would be quick to say so. They might say that comments on leaks on blogs are beneath them, but some at least are involved with RC.

Geo

In my opinion, Her Majesty’s subjects need to be raising hades with their MPs to get an official investigation of this situation, and validate (or not) these emails.

If they are validated by an official investigation, then IMO Phil Jones must go as head of CRU for sheer “contempt of science” and treating public data as his private property displayed in some of these things.

And if the more despicable emails are doctored forgeries, then I certainly would hope that Dr. Jones would be the first to stand up and demand to be vindicated by an official investigation proving that to be the case.

Calvin Ball

Looks like a few comments showing up at RC after about a 6-hour dead period. Suppose they had server problems? 😛

Denny

If this is true, I’m speechless!

Thomas Fuller

Steve, you actually linked to another Examiner’s story on this–you’d like his more than mine, anyways. I have emailed East Anglia for reaction on this. I have also posted a comment in moderation limbo at Real Climate, offering to present their views if they wish.

There are protocols for dealing with whistleblower information. We’re moving pretty fast on this and ignoring some of them. I’m glad people are talking about authenticating these messages (although I’m pretty convinced they’re authentic). But people’s careers are on the line here–and not just the ones many of the commenters here would like to hang.

For what it’s worth, there needs to be a metadata description of what is there. It needs to be tied to a timeline of relevant events at the time. People should remember words like ‘alleged’ and ‘purportedly,’ and phrases like ‘should this turn out to be true.’ I know–horse, barn door, etc.

The one message I’d like to convey is we do not need to rush on this. This will be around to examine and feed our discussions for a long time to come. If we start right, it will go better for us. There seems to be some indications of possible unethical behaviour, if these are true representations of email communications. It isn’t right to tell people to delete emails that may be the subject of FOI requests, at the very least. But we don’t need to pile onto this right now.

Softly, softly…

Joshua Corning

Just a random pick from the pile of emails:

Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board…
What do others think?
mike
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

It is hard to find one email that does have some form of damning evidence in it. I am making a guess that whoever posted these went through them and picked the juicy parts. From my count there are 1073 emails in the file. And considering that this appears to be emails only coming and going from CRU which would be two ppl Briffa and Jones (are there others who work there?) and how many e-mails an average individual makes every year that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the “hacker/leak” did a lot of work filtering through probably thousands of emails to compile the perfect list….i don’t know. Just trying to get my hands around it.

KW

CRU is peter and this file is the WOLF. You get what you deserve.

Gene Nemetz

If all of this is real and the general public finds out that scientists involved in the ‘science’ of global warming were doing these things then that will be the end of ‘manmade global warming’. There is no way of recovering from this kind of damage.

And there will be no way of removing the shame for those who were involved.

• deadwood
  Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 1:59 AM | Permalink

  Re: Gene Nemetz (#136),

  There is no way of recovering from this kind of damage.

  We’ll see. I especially would like to read Andy Revkin’s take.

  • Gene Nemetz
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM | Permalink

    Re: deadwood (#145),

    I am mostly talking about the perception in the general population. I’m pretty sure that most people have never even heard of Andy Revkin and will never read his blog. I’m also pretty sure they won’t be paying attention to any attempt to patch over the damage. Most people will just know that deceptive things took place to create ‘manmade global warming’. That’s what will cause the permanent damage. The ‘consensus among scientists’ was fabricated. That will stick with people. Any damage control for that will fall on deaf ears—IMO.

NikFromNYC

This graphic bluntly explains file 0939154709.txt:

Mark T

Something I have not seen mentioned, which I think is more important than anything, is that the science mags could take a huge hit on this revelation. Even if there are no legal repercussions, the damage done could ruin the ability of anybody participating in these emails to publish.

Mark

ChrisinMB

here’s another link:

http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009

It’s pretty quick and not a torrent site.

Neil Hyde

Links to this and other blogs and a functioning download , have been sent to a sympathetic British MP.

tensorized lurker

Who is Joseph Alcamo? This guy has no shame.

From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions —

Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!

Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.

Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.

Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo

—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany

Phone: +49 561 804 3898
Fax: +49 561 804 3176

• Jeff C.
  Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 2:20 AM | Permalink

  Re: tensorized lurker (#148),

  Prof. Joseph Alcamo is Chief Scientist (Designate) of the United Nations Environment Programme. He is currently Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research at the University of Kassel, Germany and Professor of Environmental Systems Science and Engineering. Alcamo has worked for 14 years with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has been a lead author of many of its reports, including the most recent report on the impacts of climate change. He is well known for contributions to global modelling of the environment and development of global scenarios. Alcamo was winner of the international Max Planck Research Prize for achievements in global change research. He is an American citizen.

  from here as of April 2009:

  Click to access JosephAlcamo_B4E.pdf

Ian

These do read like a novel at times. I concur with the posters who urge caution. The strength of this blog lies in its focus on the data. To the extent that these documents aid that quest, they should be used; the personal & snide comments, and apparent chicanery, can be dealt with elsewhere.

Now, that being said, I thought this was an interesting proposed approach to uncooperative data:

#1254108338
From: Tom Wigley […]
To: Phil Jones […]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer […]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

D. Patterson

The MRU data is not the only cooling worrying this AGW activists. They’re also not happy with the “coolness” of the proxy data?

From: Jonathan Overpeck
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Fwd: Re: the Arctic paper and IPCC
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:15:53 -0700
Cc: Eystein Jansen

Hi Keith – great (!) to hear from you – hope you had a good holiday.
Your reward (ha) is the attached paper and comment below from Konrad.
He can supply data if needed for a synthetic figure, but we can add
this later once the Science paper he mentions (w/ us a co-authors
among millions, I assume) gets vetted more. Your call.

I’m still not convinced about the AO recon, and am worried about the
late 20th century “coolness” in the proxy recon that’s not in the
instrumental, but it’s a nice piece of work in any case.

Now, for all the issues you raise on other stuff in your email, I’ll
address to you and that crowd.

thanks, Peck

Jeff Id

It’s Terry Hurlbut rather than Tom Fuller.

vdb

From 1076359809.txt (removed email addresses and header info, added emphasis)

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: Fw: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon Feb 9 15:50:09 2004

Mike,
These were two simple ones to provide. Also Tas told him I had one of them. I guess these are the ones that aren’t available on web sites.
Anyway, it is done now. If he starts asking for them in dribs and drabs, I’ll baulk at that.
Ben waded in with very positive comments re the CC issue. Steve’s going to find it very hard to ask you to send the code. Those that say on the CC board that you should send the code, have little idea what is involved. Most are on the social science side.
Cheers
Phil
At 10:19 09/02/2004 -0500, you wrote:

HI Phil,
Personally, I wouldn’t send him anything. I have no idea what he’s up to, but you can be sure it falls into the “no good” category.
There are a few series from our ’03 paper that he won’t have–these include the latest Jacoby and D’Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven’t made it publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn’t be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our ’99 GRL paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!
talk to you later,
mike
At 02:46 PM 2/9/2004 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
FYI. Sent him the two series – the as received versions. Wonder what he’s up to? Why these two series ? Used a lot more in the 1998 paper. Didn’t want the Alerce series.
Must already have the Tassy series from Ed. I know Ed has a more recent series than we used in 1998. Got this for the 2003 work.
Cheers
Phil

From: “Steve McIntyre”
To: “Phil Jones”
Subject: Fw: Law Dome O18
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 08:05:23 -0500

Dear Phil,
Tas van Ommen has refered me to you for the version of his dataset that you used in Jones et al Holocene 1998 and I would appreicate a copy. I would also appreciate a copy of the Lenca series used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre

Alberto

It is all very real: HadleyCRU says leaked data is real

Geckko

This is very dangerous. I won’t mind benig proven wrong, but at this point I have to remain very sceptical of the most damning of this information.

If found to be a hoax this is going to set back genuine sceptical enquiry in this field. The politics will have one. That is not in the interests of good science or good policy.

KimW

As with Steve, words simply fail me. I did not doubt the authenticity of the archive, the sheer banality rings true. What is being exposed is the answer to the question, “What is Climate Science” ?. I look forward to seeing a timeline of their actions and perhaps the revealing of the codes that were refused for public display. Expect an offensive from the Warmers to the effect – AGW, Fake but accurate.

M. Simon

Jones has verified:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-verification-of-hadley-cru-files.html

ianl8888

OK, thanks to Michael R (#116) posting a MegaUpload link, I’ve had an opportunity to read about half the emails, so far. I started from the most recent and worked methodically backwards – headers, refs, dates etc are there. Most of it is quite mundane and typical of a working environment, although Mann’s contributions seem to be a bit edgier and anxious (almost impatient) compared with the normal tenor of the letters. Definitely a change in tone, anyway. There is so much mundane day-to-day detail that, combined with the detailed headers, refs, dates, cc’s etc, I feel most of the content is authentic. For those worried about “misleading forgeries maybe dotted around” in this leak, I just ignore the sillier stuff. The various nets of emails, letters and reports that I have been part of over my working life surely contain examples of this

[I’ve had hard experience in two Commissions of Inquiry into multiple-death mining disasters wherein I was required to make an educated guess as to the provenance and year date of various unsigned maps – mostly I did it on map style, fonts, deep knowledge of evolving CAD programs, which geologists habitually used which combinations etc. This is a similar exercise, or at least so it seems to me]

Not as much “shlock horror” as maybe some people had expected. The attitudes portrayed are exactly as we already knew them to be. What I find interesting, apart from the actual hard science discussions squeezed into these letters, is the obvious and deep conflict between Jones and the person who initially dumped this on the Russian ftp site. There is clearly a real animosity to motivate this, since most of it is such tediously mundane work-a-day stuff. It’s like dumping a YouTube clip of someone picking their nose at lunch. I find it difficult to believe that Jones cannot make an “inspired” guess, but the reason behind such animosity worries me – how could such an influential R&D centre develop such a rancour ? What is it we don’t yet know ?

I’ll leave the hard science analyses for a (much) longer look and for people better versed in the nuances of this branch of applied science than I am

Nimby

What about mainstream media? They’re all strangely silent.

• A. Physicist
  Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:34 AM | Permalink

  Re: Nimby (#173), Perhaps because people are all up in arms about a zip file with no attribution posted on an anonymous FTP in Russia? Whatever happened to due diligence? Mann could just as easily zip all the .R files posted on CA, spend a day or two writing realistic-looking “e-mails” between Steve and others on the site, and then add one from Exxon stating that “the check is in the mail.” Hold your horses, guys. The authorities will obviously check in on the archives at CRU (with Steve’s insistence helping, I’m sure), and may well find that a lot of this has been faked. The poster makes their motives very clear, and it’s hard for me to swallow the potential for misinformation here. I’m just surprised that nobody faked something like this sooner!

  • Michael R
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:44 AM | Permalink

    Re: A. Physicist (#176), http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html

    • RomanM
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

      Re: Michael R (#177),

      I don’t think that there is much doubt that the majority of the email text was indeed obtained from the CRU site. However, I must agree with A. Physicist that there is absolutely no guarantee that portions of the text have not been edited or had material added.

      IMHO, some of the text reads oddly to me and auditing is definitely in order.

    • A. Physicist
      Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

      Re: Michael R (#177), That alleged interview is almost the most suspicious piece of this puzzle. Look at the TGIF post linked to at the briefing room… Did you not notice that TGIF is a segment from “Investigate Magazine,” a Kiwi tabloid roughly equivalent to the National Enquirer? And Phil Jones talked to them first? Really? Color me skeptical.
      It looks like the BBC has now talked to CRU, which is probably the first actual interview that has taken place. It sounds as though someone broke in, stole what they could, and posted much of it to an FTP server with or without first modifying the contents. The modification is the important question, and I have to say that the wording of many of the e-mails is very strange. Almost as though re-written by a non-native english speaker…

  • Nimby
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

    Re: A. Physicist (#176), I totally agree.

vg

I have no doubts this will hit mainstream media either very soon or in
weeks ahead…and heads will roll. I think that we should be gracious in
our victory and not persecute or demean any of these people. After all
they were probably well intentioned academics who simply lost the plot
(and many scientist do, I am one of them..) and we should remember
that the only contention here was that Anthropogenic CO2 is/was
responsible for increased averaged global temperatures. Other issues
are pending but not related to global temperatures such as
overpopulation, waste, local land use and I’m sure and hopeful some of
those brilliant minds will find employment in these areas such as
environmental science etc STEVE, excuse editorializing but this is a special…

A. Physicist

I feel compelled to add that given the obvious questions about the origin of these documents, one should be aware of potential legal issues associated with their redistribution. See, e.g., absence of malice, particularly New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. It’s probably worth coating this in countless grains of salt. For all we know, this could be a massive hoax designed to convince people that Big Russian Oil is trying to make their winters warmer.

Ecotretas

Holy Cow!
(0952106664.txt):

2. As all our (Mike, Tom and CRU) all show that the first few centuries of the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some flak from the skeptics saying we’re wrong because everyone knows it was warmer in the Medieval period. We can show why we believe we are correct with independent data from glacial advances and even slower responding proxies, however, what are the chances of putting together a group of a very few borhole series that are deep enough to get the last 1000 years. Basically trying to head off criticisms of the IPCC chapter, but good science in that we will be rewriting people’s perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium. It is important as studies of the millennium will help to show that the levels of natural
variability from models are reasonable. Tom has run his EBM with current best estimates of past forcing (Be-10 as a proxy for solar output and Alan Robock’s ice core volcanic index) and this produces a series similar to all series of the last 1000 years.

The above is just ideas of how we, as a group, could/should try and reduce criticisms etc over the next year or so. Nothing is sacred. Your North American borehole series could be correct as it is annual and most of the high-freq proxy series respond mainly to summer variations. Is yours really annual when there is a marked seasonal snow cover season ?

Geo

“I hope that Mr. Mc ‘I’m not entirely there in the head’ ” –Phil Jones.

Nice schoolboy alliteration there, Phil. The arrogance and pettiness of these people is pretty astounding. I’m reminded of a question JFK got early in his presidency. He was asked what his biggest surprise was once he actually got into office. He answered with a smile something like “I was surprised to discover that things were actually as bad as we had been saying they were during the campaign.”

These guys actually are as despicable “at home in their t-shirts and running shorts” as their worst critics have been saying they are.

Jones must go as head of CRU. He is a disgrace.

theduke

If these emails and documents are authentic, I don’t think you can over-estimate the massive loss of scientific and public integrity here, both institutional (IPCC, HADCRU, NASA Goddard, etc) and individual (the Team.)

As for the file being seeded with fake documents, I don’t see it. Whoever did this is on a mission. Why would he compromise the mission? Either it’s a major prank with many fake emails, or it’s all genuine. I would further bet that Jones was interviewed and made the statements attributed to him, even it was in an Australian rag mag. (If the interview disappears any time soon, I will admit I was wrong.) Hadley was hacked. If the BBC reported it, it’s likely true.

Dean McAskil

All your base are belong to us?

AKD

Michael Mann seems to be confirming that the e-mails are genuine:

He said: “I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”‘

MikeN

Dear Keith.
…not checked at this time). I hope your desire to see low growth
about 350 BC will be more or less satisfied. However for some
reason there are no good correlation between number of samples
and growth rate. For instance, about 700 BC provided by only one
sample with very high growth during just this period. I don’t
know why, may be number of trees depends on burial conditions as
well.
I have to note that 364 BC (not 360 BC as I wrote before) on
sample No. 60 slightly looks like false. On sample 453 it is
normal ring, on other sample it is very small. Therefore I can’t
still say something definitely.
Best wishes,
Rashit Hantemirov

sf2note

RomanM

It looks like RC is answering some of our questions with regard to the veracity of the emails.

So far, I haven’t seen any indication that any of them have been falsified.

Ian

Interesting: it appears Mr. Briffa also was not a fan of MBH proxy reconstructions.

#1058275977

From: Edward Cook […]
To: Keith Briffa […]
Subject: Re: Fwd: revised NH comparison manuscript
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:32:57 -0400
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the paper and help in toning down Mike’s efforts to put a stake in the Esper heart. I quickly read the paragraph you mention. Undoubtedly part of what is said is true, but it doesn’t explain it all of the differences between the original MBH reconstruction and any of the other NH recons. Now that Mike has moved on to a totally new NH recon, I suppose all of this is a mute [sic] point. However, your Blowing Hot and Cold piece clearly showed that the MBH estimates were undoubtedly deficient in low-frequency variability compared to ANY other recon. Enough said. I need to enjoy myself.
Cheers,
Ed
Ed
Thought you should see this (in confidence) . Have succeeded in getting reasonable citation to your work and much toning down of criticism of Esper et al in first draft ( see last paragraph before Section C) . Cheers
Keith
P.S. Do not ask me why Ray, Malcolm and Phil are on this cause I don’t know – work cam [sic]vout of stuff Tim did with Scott when visiting there last year.

Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:51:09 -0400
Subject: revised NH comparison manuscript
Cc: Mike Mann <mann@virginia.edu
To: Malcolm Hughes […],Raymond Bradley […], Tim Osborn […], Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, Phil Jones […]
From: Scott Rutherford […]
[…]

Attached to this e-mail is a revision of the northern hemisphere comparison manuscript. First some general comments. I tried as best as possible to incorporate everyone’s suggestions. Typically this meant adding/deleting or clarifying text. There were cases where we disagreed with the suggested changes and tried to clarify in the text why.
In this next round of changes I encourage everyone to make specific suggestions in terms of wording and references (e.g. Rutherford et al. GRL 1967 instead of “see my GRL paper”). I also encourage everyone to make suggestions directly in the file in coloured text or by using Microsquish Word’s “Track Changes” function (this will save me deciphering cryptic penmanship; although I confess, my writing is worse than anyone’s). If you would prefer to use the editing functions in Adobe Acrobat let me know and I will send a PDF file. If you still feel strongly that I have not adequately addressed an issue please say so.
I will incorporate the suggestions from this upcoming round into a manuscript to be submitted. After review, everyone will get a crack at it again.
I will not detail every change made (if anyone wants the file with the changes tracked I can send it). Here are the major changes:
1) removal of mixed-hybrid approach and revised discussions/figures
2) removal of CE scores from the verification tables
3) downscaling of the Esper comparison to a single figure panel and
one paragraph.
4) revised discussion of spatial maps and revised figure (figure 8).
5) seasonal comparisons have been revised
Several suggestions have been made for where to submit. These are listed on page 1 of the manuscript. Please indicate your preference ASAP and I will tally the votes.
I would like to submit by late July, so if you could please get me comments by say July 15 that would be great. I will send out a reminder in early July. If I don’t hear from you by July 15 I will assume that you are comfortable with the manuscript.
Please let me know if you have difficulty with the file or would prefer a different format.
Regards,

Scott
______________________________________________
Scott Rutherford
Marine Research Scientist
Graduate School of Oceanography
[…]

Scott Lurndal

What I found interesting was the email from Dr. Jones to Dr. Briffa viz the response to Dr. Donald Keiller of Anglia Ruskin. See 1256760240.txt.

Keith,
There is a lot more there on CA now. I would be very wary about responding to this
person now having seen what McIntyre has put up.

Dr. Keiller had requested details on the effect of both stripbark and yamal on the recons. He also doubted teleconnection and that tree-ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner; both not being accepted science.

It’s also interesting that Steve’s name appears in 110 of the email messages.

Stacey

The truth will out

NikFromNYC

Yeah, the conspiracy here is mainly observer bias getting out of hand to the point where they really believe skepticism must absolutely be wrong and obviously so and thus mustn’t be honest. However, the BIGGER conspiracy is how climatologists ignore the one piece of temperature data that is most important of all: the few VERY LONG thermometer records in Europe the go back almost 400 years.

Here I confirm that this record is good by comparing it to HadCRUT3. Sorry about the propoganda graphic style but I made it for a general audience.

• D. Patterson
  Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 7:08 PM | Permalink

  Re: NikFromNYC (#206),

  See the temperature charts in tdutch.pdf located in the HADCRU documents folder. It’s not like they were not aware of a Dutch temperature record showing many equivalent warmth events over the centuries.

David

From: T
To: xxxxxx
Subject: My turn
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:38 -0600

Dear friends,

[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
exchange — although they may be glad to have been missed]

I think [BP] has the right idea — although there are some
unique things about this situation. [BP] says ….

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’

to which I add ….

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

____________________

Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more
than a direct
and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us
was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was
more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did
in the above example — then this is an advantage.

_____________________________

There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
this?

_______________________________

There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
involved in writing a response.

The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have
been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
(vol. 23, pp. 1–9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
responded saying …..

The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three
referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.

On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who
advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.

It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper —
deFreitas has offered us this possibility.

______________________________

This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get
through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
Soon, and so on).

The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
does get through.
_______________________________

Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.

If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.

In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’
PhD is at the same level).

______________________________

Best wishes to all,
T.

Steve Geiger

Once again, more on scabbing instrumental data onto proxy data:

From Jones to Mann and Folland (966015630.txt)

“It is possible to add the instrumental series on from about 1980 (Mike

sought of did this in his Nature article to say 1998 was the warmest of

the millennium – and I did something similar in Rev. Geophys.) but there

is no way Singer can say the proxy data doesn’t record the last 20 years

of warming, as we don’t have enough of the proxy series after about 1980”

Stacey

Trick or cheat

1170724434.txt

When in doubt, do not tell anybody. Else you will get the Mad Mann after you.

XXXX writes amo to Mann Mockton and Singer:
Fred,
Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the
above-referenced subjects.
It is indeed striking that IPCC’s estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise
has decreased over time. The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario
(not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall
Street Journal editorial page has made much of). On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have
taken a pass on Hansen’s argument. The IPCC says their estimates are “excluding future
rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is
lacking.” … …. … …Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one. It says
on Page 8, “Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in
[pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . .” The
wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to
it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph.
If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know. I attach my latest presentation
— and would appreciate seeing both Christopher’s report mentioned in the Journal editorial
and Fred’s comment on Rahmstorf’s article published in Science last week.
Best regards,
XXXX

Mann lectures back:
XXXX, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
ib earth are you thinking? You’re not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on
you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann — Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Jeff Alberts

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is time. If CRU was recently hacked, I mean just a couple days ago, there’s no way anyone would have time to go through tens of thousands of emails and other files and edit them appropriately.

MattN

Steve, I cannot imagine how you’re feeling right now. Likely the feeling of joy/relief that comes from complete 100% vindication. From what I’ve read, you were right about everything. And they knew it.

Well done. Well. Done….

theduke

Forgot to mention that the above was from June of 1998.

theduke

Mann to Jones, May, 1999:

Trust that I’m certainly on board w/ you that we’re all working towards a common goal. That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year, and potentially, without us having had approprimate input, Keith and Tim’s now) that appear to “divide and conquer”. The skeptics happily took your commentary last year as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several commentaries (mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is what this is all about. It is in the NAME of the common effort we’re all engaged in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest commentary–so as to avoid precisely that scenario.

Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source of my concerns. It really doesn’t have anything to do about who did what first, etc. I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we’re doing here.

It was never science as is commonly understood. It was always activism mining science.

Clark

I suspect (hope?) much of this will be required reading in science classes for many years to come.

mackinacnick

I would like to ask a couple of questions and see what you all think….Not being a particularily good math guy either…(but this is not math)

Who could have done this ?

1)does it look like an “inside” job from the collection of items and
coding ?
2) does it look like a “hack” ? is there a way to tell ?

(note: an inside job would mean one thing,a hack means something else entirely)

3) is there a way to tell if the “hack” was foreign based or domestic based ?
4) a gigantic, really mean-sprited hoax ? what would give that away ?

both questions would turn to the second question – why ?

disaffected employee ? blackmail (note – the poster said a “random selection” – that infers that there are more?)? international intrigue of some type ?

I’ll point out that the “hacker” knew what they wanted, knew where to get it.

When ?
its friday – most news agencies know that for minimum effect, you dump stuff on Fridays (it has the whole weekend to die…)
When was this uploaded ?

How ?
it has been mentioned several times that code was part of this. Would/could this code be part of an email attachment ? or must be too big and stored separately ? How (any IT guys out there?) would it be possible to reach the servers (or would it be one big server) with all this info on it ?)

I am properly gleeful that this global warming hogwash is starting to be seen for what it is… have any of the principles mentioned resigned ?

As for the propriety of putting this down on email – do academics view email differently than the rest of the world (it is my suspicion they do)? Is it possible that the people involved would put such damning info on email ?
Would that be common practice (especially for academics ?)

my highest regards

• steven mosher
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 3:49 AM | Permalink

  Re: mackinacnick (#228), maybe the hacker has more.

  maybe the hacker wants us to FOI again…, maybe smart hacker is releasing mails in drips and drabs.. to prolong the news cycle.

theduke

I’ve read the first ten pages and portions of the rest. I intend to read it all. Based on what I’ve read so far, if I had to give it a title it would be:

Notes from a Political Movement Intent on Mis-using Science.

I sympathize with them. They are/were all hard-working, smart people who bought into a theory that was a trap set by ideologues in the 60s and 70s. It’s agenda-driven science plain and simple and it was thought to be necessary.

I’m saddened more than anything. Their confusion and panic as evidenced in emails in the past few months over the failure of actual conditions in the past decade to confirm their theories and projections is tragedy worthy of Shakespeare.

Re: mackinacnick (#227),

It doesn’t matter.

Z

Are there a few more CENSORED directories here, than previously ‘found’ (MBH-osborn.zip)?

Does Mann uncertainty.doc clarify any old mysteries?

Leonard Herchen

A couple of ones that I haven’t seen mentioned completely yet:

1256747199.txt: “McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.”

and on the upside down data:

1252154659.txt “Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the Korttajarvi data.”

Jim

From 1098492400

At 20:46 21/10/2004, you wrote:

Phil,
I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me.
At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held
for some time.
Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? — or is it?
I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too
deep into this to be helpful.
Tom.

Richard Sycamore

My comment above did not survive the censorship process at RC.
I have asked the following:

Richard Sycamore says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

21 November 2009
What is your censorship policy for this thread?

• Peter
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 6:12 AM | Permalink

  Re: Richard Sycamore (#242),

  Richard, read the e-mails. The censorship policy is whatever they want it to be that day. Comments are held “in queue”, until the team can decide what gets in or out. The visual I get is Roman, thumbs up or down.

Richard Sycamore

My comment above did not survive the censorship process at RC.
I have asked the following:

Richard Sycamore says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

21 November 2009
What is your censorship policy for this thread?

• MikeN
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

  Re: Richard Sycamore (#243), Richard Sycamore, you may have been banned outright for asking too any inconvenient questions. Try using a different name.

  Takes a lot of skill to get censored on the thread that hasn’t had much censoring so far.
  I got through with 2 statements about the Nature trick.

Jim

From 1241415427.ttx

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 …

D. Patterson

Imagine what it must be like for the members of the Team as they wonder day to day and night to night in the future whether or not anymore of their remaining e-mail and documents will drop like a heavy boot into the glare of public scrutiny. You don’t suppose a whistleblower managed to undelete and archive any of those deleted files, eh?

The Teams’ comments about deleting the FOIA related files makes a person wonder why the Team waited so long, perhaps days, before alerting law enforcement about the breach of security on the servers?

• DaveJR
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 4:37 AM | Permalink

  Re: D. Patterson (#246),

  You don’t suppose a whistleblower managed to undelete and archive any of those deleted files, eh?

  Chances are it doesn’t matter whether the scientists deleted their emails or not (they probably already had done). They are most likely to have been archived by the IT department for legal reasons and it is the archive the whistleblower took. Rather than pick out messages of interest in situ (possibly mixed in with thousands of others), I would have thought they’d just copy everything and sort it out later. There may well be more to come.

KRM

WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IPCC ONE GETS SOME ATTENTION:

Neil

There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC

AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change

of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than

before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global

warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years

of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which

will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface

temperature.

Regards

David

bender

1018647333.txt
Mann slashed by ECS author

bender

As I understand what Ed, Keith and Hal Fritts have
written at various times about RCS, and from my own
limited experience with the method, it is extremely
important to have strong replication, and I don’t see 50-70
samples probably from 25-35 trees as a big sample. For
reference, most chronologies used in dendroclimatology
are based on 10-40 trees, that is 20-80 samples at 2 cores
per tree for a single “site”, usually a few hectares.

Malcolm

bender

Anyone want to count the number of files that use the phrase “MWP” vs. those that use the phrase “MCA”? What does the ratio tell you?

• Glen Raphael
  Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

  Re: bender (#255) asks,
  ‘Anyone want to count the number of files that use the phrase “MWP” vs. those that use the phrase “MCA”?’

  Sure. Number of lines on which each term was mentioned in the email directory:

  MWP: 287
  MCA: 16
  MWE: 24 (Medieval Warm Epoc)

Lindsey

Is there a Database Programmer in the house?

I’ve been reading through HARRY_READ_ME, a Notepad file in the FOI2009 zip file. The first sentence identifies it as “READ ME for Harry’s work on the CRU TS2.1/3.0 datasets, 2006-2009!”

This appears to leave a pretty good “bread crumb trail” for those with the database programming background to understand it.

Here was one quote that seemed to cast doubt on the integrity of the data:
“This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect
nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option –
to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other
words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to
become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ’em, and it’s the main reason the
project is nearly a year late.”

To me, this seems like a case of GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out)…. as in, if the database info is corrupted, then the conclusions derived from analysis of the database info would also be corrupted.

If there’s a database programmer around, I’d like to hear their thoughts on HARRY_READ_ME. Thanks!

• Nick Moon
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 5:59 AM | Permalink

  Re: Lindsey (#256),

  I had a brief look at the cru-code directory and also read a bit of the HARRY memo. Although they talk about databases, I don’t think this is database as most software people would think of it. It looks like the files are fairly standard fortran output. Basically flat files containing a number of fixed length records.

  My brief read suggests that ‘Harry’ is a young man, and slightly geeky. There are moments in that memo when he expresses his frustration at having to work with this mess. I kind of recogniesd myself when younger. Harry might be a postgrad student. Anyway seeing that he seems to know a bit about computers, he has been dumped on. My advice to Harry – never admit you know anything about computers – you’ll get sidelined into fixing everyone else’s problems, never get invited to the big international conferences and never get to meet girls.

  It looks like someone higher up has realised they don’t know how to reproduce their own results. (Probably asa result of prodding from the likes of Steve Mc.) I assume this means that ‘Tim’ who seems to have written all the fortran and IDL code is not available. So poor Harry has been told to grab a copy of all the code and presumably the raw data and try and re-create.

  Harry doesn’t understand why the code is the way it is. He doesn’t understand why half is written in Fortran and half in IDL. (Good point Harry. Harry then lets himself down rather by thinking it would be an improvement to do everything in Fortran). But for our amusement Harry does know to keep a lab notebook while he is working.

  But to be honest, I think Harry is right – this should all be redone from scratch. And personally I don’t think it should be done by postgrad students each only really interested in getting their thesis out. An organisation should concentrate on either producing good quality data or good quality PhDs. probably a mistake to do both.

  what strikes me as weird is how laughably small the data is. The monthly CRU temperature data is based on waht – a few thousand stations, none of which have been running for more than a couple of hundred years. The station temperature data probably comes in at well under 30Mb. You could stick 20 copies of it on a CD-ROM without using compression. And I can’t see that there is that much data processing to do. You have to work through all the stations and use those values to interpolate values for places on the globe where you don’t have data. It’s not hugely difficult. And yet they are wasting time porting the code back and forwards between their alpha workstations and their linux cluster. I really astruggle to understand why they need a cluster of linux boxes for this.

  • V
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    Re: Nick Moon (#270),

    OH FUCK THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m
    hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
    data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.

    I think this also describes the state of affairs quite well.

Dominic

I started to feel a bit sorry for what has happened to the team and then I recalled the quotes used in the article in last week’s WSJ piece

James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, has dismissed him as a “court jester.” Mr. Mann replied to an emailed query about Mr. McIntyre by decrying “every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself.”

Others are more thick-skinned: “You mention his name in my community, people just smile. It’s a one-liner to get a laugh out of a group of climate scientists,” affirms Stanford University’s Stephen Schneider.

and I thought they deserve it for their sheer hubris which just rings out from all of these emails. And all the time, they knew they had made mistakes and that the science debate was not closed but they pretended differently.

It is an interesting psychological situation which I am sure has been well studied – a small team of people with a common agenda develop a paranoid siege-like mentality in which any questioning of their work is seen as an attack which must be defended at all costs, regardless of the truth. I am sure that most of these guys did not start like this. I used to be a physics academic. This is not how we scientists normally behave. It would be interesting some day to do an analysis of how they got into this mindset since I doubt they were always like this. I suspect that when politicians mix with mild mannered scientists, the scientists see the politicians as master (they have the key to funding) and change their behaviour accordingly to emulate the master.

It is certainly not how science should operate.

Mr Purple

So, STEVE MCINTYRE

Is this Phil Jones and Michael Mann encouraging Keith Briffa to ‘manipulate’ his data?

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Keith Briffa , “Folland, Chris” , ‘Phil Jones’
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:35:24 -0400
Cc: tkarl@ncdc.noaa.gov, mann@virginia.edu

Thanks for your response Keith,

For all:

Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both
raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris, through no
fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very
clearly to the
others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own
(Mann et al) series. I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion
will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are
robust among a number of quasi-independent and truly independent estimates,
each
of which is not without its own limitations and potential biases. And I
certainly don’t want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.

I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the plot, and can ask
Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody
liked my own color/plotting conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself).
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.

So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s
series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate
(through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere
patterns with Phil’s more extratropical series) that the major
discrepancies between Phil’s and our series can be explained in terms of
spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary
here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that
explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s series, which has similar
seasonality
*and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in
exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the
problem we
all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this
was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably
concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al
series.

So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that
“something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps
Keith can
help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series
and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones
et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this
regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting
doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates
and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that
doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have
to give it fodder!

The recent Crowley and Lowery multiproxy estimate is an important
additional piece of information which I have indeed incorporated into the
revised draft.
Tom actually estimates the same mean warming since the 17th century in his
reconstruction, that we estimate in ours, so it is an added piece of
information that Phil and I are probably in the ballpark (Tom has used
a somewhat independent set of high and low-resolution proxy data and a very
basic compositing methodology, similar to Bradley and Jones, so there is
some independent new information in this estimate.

One other key result with respect to our own work is from a paper in the
press in “Earth Interactions”. An unofficial version is available here:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_cover.html

THe key point we emphasize in this paper is that the low-frequency
variability in our hemispheric temperature reconstruction is basically the
same if we don’t use any dendroclimatic indicators at all (though we
certainly resolve less variance, can’t get a skillful reconstruction as far
back, and there are notable discrepancies at the decadal and interannual
timescales). A believe I need to add a sentence to the current discussion
on this point,
since there is an unsubstantiated knee-jerk belief that our low-frequency
variability is suppressed by the use of tree ring data.

We have shown that this is not the case: (see here:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html
and specifically, the plot and discussion here:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html
Ironically, you’ll note that there is more low-frequency variability when
the tree ring data *are* used, then when only other proxy and
historical/instrumental data are used!

SO I think we’re in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly,
than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium.
And the issues I’ve spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.

One last point: We will (like it or not) have SUBSTANTIAL
opportunity/requirement to revise much of this discussion after review, so
we don’t have to resolve everything now. Just the big picture and the
important details…

I’m sure we can can up with an arrangement that is amenable to all, and I’m
looking forward to hearing back from Keith, Phil, and Chris in particular
about the above, so we can quickly move towards finalizing a first draft.

Looking forward to hearing back w/ comments,

mike

At 04:19 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Keith Briffa wrote:
>
>Hi everyone
> Let me say that I don’t mind what you put in the policy makers
>summary if there is a general concensus. However some general discussion
>would be valuable . First , like Phil , I think that the supposed
>separation of the tree-ring reconstruction from the others on the grounds
>that it is not a true “multi-proxy” series is hard to justify. What is true
>is that these particular tree-ring data best represent SUMMER temperatures
>mostly at the northern boreal forest regions. By virtue of this , they also
>definately share significant variance with Northern Hemisphere land and
>land and marine ANNUAL temperatures – but at decadal and multidecadal
>timescales – simply by virtue of the fact that these series correlated with
>the former at these timescales. The multi proxy series (Mann et al . Jones
>et al) supposedly represent annual and summer seasons respectively, and
>both contain large proportions of tree-ring input. The latest tree-ring
>density curve ( i.e. our data that have been processed to retain low
>frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do
>a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and
>new Crowley series – see our recent Science piece) whether this represents
>’TRUTH’ however is a difficult problem. I know Mike thinks his series is
>the ‘best’ and he might be right – but he may also be too dismissive of
>other data and possibly over confident in his (or should I say his use of
>other’s). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
>reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
>calibrations that include them and when we don’t know the precise role of
>particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
>problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
>timescales. I still contend that multiple regression against the recent
>very trendy global mean series is potentially dangerous. You could
>calibrate the proxies to any number of seasons , regardless of their true
>optimum response . Not for a moment am I saying that the tree-ring , or any
>other proxy data, are better than Mike’s series – indeed I am saying that
>the various reconstructions are not independent but that they likely
>contribute more information about reality together than they do alone. I do
>believe , that it should not be taken as read that Mike’s series (or
>Jone’s et al. for that matter) is THE CORRECT ONE. I prefer a Figure that
>shows a multitude of reconstructions (e.g similar to that in my Science
>piece). Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better
>on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed.
>Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter
>accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to
>give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the
>precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into
>absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past. Similarly, I
>don’t see that we are able to substantiate the veracity of different
>temperature reconstructions through reference to Solar forcing theories
>without making assumptions on the effectiveness of (seasonally specific )
>long-term insolation changes in different parts of the globe and the
>contribution of solar forcing to the observed 20th century warming .
> There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the
>very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation
>through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a
>nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
>years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
>so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
>those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
>unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
>not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.
> Finally I appologise for this rather self-indulgent ramble, but I
>thought I may as well voice these points to you . I too would be happy to
>go through the recent draft of the chapter when it becomes available.
>
> cheers to all
> Keith
>
>At 01:07 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Folland, Chris wrote:
>>Dear All
>>
>>A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy
>>Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data
>>somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather
>>significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result
>>(which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers
>>and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results
>>may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is
>>probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.
>>
>>Chris
>>
>>> —–Original Message—–
>>> From: Phil Jones [SMTP:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
>>> Sent: 22 September 1999 12:58
>>> To: Michael E. Mann; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
>>> Cc: ckfolland@meto.gov.uk; tkarl@ncdc.noaa.gov
>>> Subject: Re: IPCC revisions
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>> Been away in Japan the last week or so. Malcolm was there in a
>>> wheelchair
>>> because of his ruptured achilles. We both mentioned the lack of evidence
>>> for global scale change related to the MWE and LIA, but all the later
>>> Japanese speakers kept saying the same old things.
>>>
>>> As for the TAR Chap 2 it seems somewhat arbitrary divison to exclude
>>> the
>>> tree-ring only reconstructions. Keith’s reconstruction is of a different
>>> character to other tree-ring work as it is as ‘hemispheric in scale’ as
>>> possible so is unlike any other tree-ring related work that is reported
>>> upon.
>>> If we go as is suggested then there would be two diagrams – one simpler
>>> one with just Mann et al and Jones et al and in another section Briffa et
>>> al. This might make it somewhat awkward for the reader trying to put them
>>> into context.
>>> The most important bit of the proxy section is the general discussion
>>> of
>>> ‘Was there an MWE and a LIA’ drawing all the strands together. Keith and
>>> I
>>> would be happy to look through any revisions of the section if there is
>>> time.
>>>
>>> One other thing, did you bring up the possibility of having a
>>> proxy-only
>>> chapter ( albeit short) for the next assessment ?
>>>
>>> On Venice I suggested to Peck that you and Keith give talks on the
>>> reconstructions – frank and honest etc emphasising issues and I lead a
>>> discussion with you both and the rest of those there where the issues
>>> can be addressed ( ie I would like to get the views of other proxy types
>>> and
>>> the modellers/detectors there). I suggested to Peck that this was early
>>> in the week as I have to leave on the Thursday to go to the last day of
>>> a Working Group meeting of the Climate Change Detection group in Geneva
>>> ( a joint WMO Commission for Climatology/CLIVAR). I hope to report on the
>>> main findings of the Venice meeting.
>>>
>>> Another issue I would like to raise is availability of all the series
>>> you use in your reconstructions. That old chestnut again !
>>>
>>> How is life in Charlottesville ? Do you ever bump into Michaels or is
>>> always off giving skeptical talks ?
>>>
>>> Tim Osborn is making great progress with his NERC grant and will be
>>> looking
>>> into dates soon for coming to see you.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Phil
>>>
>>>
>>> Prof. Phil Jones
>>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>>> NR4 7TJ
>>> UK
>>>
>>> ————————————————————————–
>>> —
>>>
>>>
>>
>–
>Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom
>Phone: +44-1603-592090 Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html

…and then is this Mann and Jones lamenting over the fact that you busted poor Keith on his manipulated data?

From: Phil Jones
To: Tim Osborn , Michael Mann ,Gavin Schmidt
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Tue Sep 29 09:17:12 2009

Mike, Gavin,
As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in soon, gradually
during October and hopefully full time from November.
I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the threads on CA. As
you’re fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre has done is going to be difficult.
It would be so much easier if they followed normal procedure and wrote up a comment and
submitted it to a journal. I looked through the threads yesterday trying to make sense of
what he’s done. My suspicion is that he’s brought in other tree ring series from more
distant sites, some of which may not even be larch. There are two chronologies that have
been used – one called the Polar Urals and one called Yamal. PU is a Schweingruber site
with density as well as ring width. The PU reconstruction is therefore not a chronology,
but a regression based reconstruction from both MXD and TRW. Yamal is just a ring width
series (with lots of sub-fossil material, so much older) from an area some distance (at
least 500km) north of PU. It was developed by Hantemirov and Shiyatov and was poorly
standardized – corridor method. I also don’t think McIntyre understands the RCS method even
though he claims to have a program. The ends and the age structure of the samples are
crucial in all this, but I think he just throws series in.
I totally agree that these attacks (for want of a better word) are getting worse.
Comments on the thread are snide in the extreme, with many saying they see no need to
submit the results to a journal. They have proved Keith has manipulated the data, so job
done.
Hadn’t thought of Senate debates. I’d put this down to the build up to Copenhagen,
which is sort of the same.

[1]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-
matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
is a complete reworking of Dave Thompson’s paper which is in press in J. Climate
(online). Looked at this, but they have made some wrong assumptions, but someone has put a
lot of work into it.

[2]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/ooops-dutch-meteorological-institute-caught-in-wea
ther-station-siting-failure-moved-station-and-told-nobody/
This one is a complete red herring – nothing wrong with De Bilt measurements. This is what
it is about according to someone at KNMI
The issue you refer to is causing a lot of noise in the Netherlands (even MP’s asking
questions to the minister). It seems this is not at all about the observational series
(nothing strange is going on), but more related to the “Law on KNMI” and the division of
tasks between commercial providers and KNMI to be discussed by parliament soon.
Cheers
Phil
At 08:46 29/09/2009, Tim Osborn wrote:

Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I’ll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He’s been
off almost 4 months now and won’t be back for at least another month (barring a couple
of lectures that he’s keen to do in October as part of a gradual return). Hopefully
he’ll be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I’m afraid I know very little about the whole thing — other than that
I am 100% confident that “The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result”
is complete crap. Having one’s integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I’m sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I
think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to
look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell
had asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn’t be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn’t involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we’ve recently
been working towards that uses these — and more — data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now…
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-

References

1. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a … variables/
2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/o … ld-nobody/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
4. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

Well that sounds like you have the start to finish discussion of the data manipulation – and you have the data as well.

A ‘random’ drop of files? I don’t think sooooooooooo!

pjm

All the snippets I have seen (without reading the email file myself) at least indicate that Jones, Mann etc believe the theory they are pushing. I have seen nothing to suggest they are pushing AGW for personal or political reasons. Unfortunately they, like many people, seem to think the end (showing the truth of their theory) justifies the means (pressuring people who are supposed to be independent, concealing data, publishing analysis which are not fully justifiable, etc).

Since the emails were (presumably) not written with a view to their publication, we can also be sure that they truly believe Steve is a pest who is usually wrong, not a pest who is usually right. I wish they, or somebody else, would explain why climate science lets them be so sure.

Peter

Mr Purple

pjm:
November 21st, 2009 at 5:51 am

It doesn’t matter what they ‘believe’. They NEED to go into their analysis as NEUTRAL OBSERVERS. That is CLEARLY not the case here. There is active discussion encouraging Keith Briffa to manipulate his tree-ring data to fit Mann’s manipulated data (and maybe Jones’ manipulated data) to reach a common conclusion that all 3 egomaniacs have agreed upon.

That is NOT science. Neither are their efforts to block critics from the review process.

This is political BS – and it has been ever since the beginning IMO. There are allegations former (deceased) IPCC chair Burt (Bert) Bolin edited the IPCC’s 2nd annual report and the entire movement started in earnest from there. I don’t know how much legitimacy I give them but it is part of the debate IMO.

I am suspicious of the previous (and current) IPCC chairs and vice chairs and their agendas. They are wealth redistribution activists, Yuri Izrael (lied to USSR people about Chernobyl dangers), Richard Odingo, a few others among them. (I checked – found little in these e-mails about those folks)

The whole AGW thing has been a sham. Scientists as a whole need to stand up to keep politics out of science. This NEEDS to be a rallying call to science and academia as a whole (which is HIGHLY skewed towards a liberal agenda).

I nominate Steve McIntyre to put an end to it all! 😉

• pjm
  Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:09 AM | Permalink

  Re: Mr Purple (#273), Mr Purple (#276), I agree with you 100%. My main point was that there is no comfort for any of the more extreme conspiracy theorists who may think that Mann etc do not even believe in AGW themselves.

  And I still wish they would debate with Steve the science of why they think he is wrong. I find it almost impossible to trust their science until they do.

  Peter

Mr Purple

The e-mails are a bit salacious at times, but the real treasure here is the tree ring data that is supplied IMO.

Actually, STEVE MCINTYRE, you should probably address this soon (my opinion).

I considered an e-mail to you – but I’m an ex-lab rat grunt from a dozen years ago. I didn’t feel worthy of interrupting your valuable time with an e-mail (and please, others don’t!). A comment, however is a different story.

I believe this document drop is intended specifically for you. It is not ‘random’ as ‘FOIA’ alluded to. Maybe the e-mails to some extent – but the data? No. Targeted. You are the target.

More specifically, it is probably targeted towards your concerns over Keith Briffa’s data – which I believe he is encouraged by Mann and Jones to ‘manipulate’ (a TRICK!).

In fact, I think that is all a very big part of this document drop.

I am largely just a curios layperson who may have only stumbled across a minor part of a much larger issue and drawn wildly offbase conclusions. (and I realize there is a history and many players at work here).

In any event – if I am even close…..please comment. 🙂

Brian Rookard

In 1256735067.txt … and this is one of a chain of emails in that file …

At 16:54 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

thanks Phil,

Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page–Gavin t?

As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,

m

p.s. any word on HadCRU Sep numbers yet???

Mr Purple

Dave L:
November 21st, 2009 at 7:20 am

Re: theduke (#221),

>Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority.<

Per this e-mail reproduced from the files, could someone please interpret what the phrase “synthetic datasets with manufactured biases” means?

I am just a layman with 10 years as a Research Assisatna. NOT a scientist. Don’t even have a BS (took all the math and science I needed to get by as a RA – didn’t take a lick of english or anything else really and haven’t worked in a lab in a dozen years)

To me that is a completely manufactured data set obviously applied to a preconceived outcome.

Do you have more to that e-mail? I could search it since I have them saved. It does sound interesting so post more if you have it. Full monte here, I think. Are there replies? Search around that file name for more (usually later for the e-mails – the last ones are the most recent?).

pk

So much for the pier review process!!

1089318616.txt

Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
it.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US.

I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil

bender

I like the exchanges surrounding Wallace Broecker and his 2001 essay in Science. mike was indeed the hardliner all along: keep the MWP out of the literature; it was just an asynchronous anomaly.

david elder

To Steve McIntyre: as I recall, one of the CRU emails says that its writer will only give you data in a raw and inconvenient form, to annoy you (!) I also recall you complaining some time back about this very thing in Climate Audit.

Is it worth checking to see if the author’s name and the date for this CRU email match those for your CA post on the raw data practice?

If they don’t, it may be ambiguous. The same raw-data prank might have been played on Steve more than once. Or the date on the CRU item may have been altered by the hacking procedure (according to the computer expert commentators earlier in the thread – I don’t understand that stuff).

But if the CRU email on raw data and Steve’s CA mention of the practice are in accord for time and name, then it would seem to corroborate the hacker’s documents rather well.

• bender
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

  Re: david elder (#290),
  There are so many references to papers in the publication process and the dates of these discussions are well-synched to the dates of submission and publication. The chronology appears to be robust beyond a shadow of doubt.

Magnus

Columns:
[Id] ,[Date] ,[Class],[Sender],[Reciever(S)] ,[Key text sample]
[1089318616],[08/07/2004] ,[A] ,[ Phil Jones] ,[Michael E. Mann] ,[ Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is]

pk

1188557698.txt

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: Fwd: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:54:58 -0600

Phil,

Seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers
that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (WCW
at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.

Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.

Tom.

EW

Just reading more about The Team reaction to that ENSO/warming paper this year.
Trenberth even went to check at JGR site to check, how many times the “offending” article was downloaded and because it was 129x in one week, he stressed the necessity for a comment with rebuttal.
Then Jones wrote about the suggested “unbiased” reviewers:”All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”

NW

One sadder thing about this is the aid and comfort it will give to the postmodern critics of science. I’m thinking of the S.T.S. Edinburgh school people (Barnes and Bloor), along with Latour and Woolger and so on. These kinds of science historians will have a field day with this material. For years to come, they will used it to paint all of science as a highly sociological, subjective, power-ridden game with little or no firm footing in any prescriptively compelling theory of knowledge.

Dave Dardinger

What bugs me is the sort of statement which appears in several of Manns email’s here, and has also appeared at RC and other places “practically everything McIntyre says is wrong.” (or words to that effect). The trouble is that there’s no truth behind the statement. Yes, Steve got some things wrong when he was sent wrong data, and it took him a while to notice that the problem in MBH98 wasn’t just the mannomatic, but also that the data fed in contained the strip-bark BCPs and similar material. Likewise, we see Mann using the excuse that Steve is supposedly to have intuited that the data he’d gotten from the Russians back in 2004 was the Yamal data. This, of course, has nothing to do with whether Yamal is usable or not. It would be nice if Mann would actually compile a partial or better exhaustive list of what he thinks at this point in time that Steve got wrong and why. I looked at his complaints in the early RC posts long ago and there’s nothing which stands up to even a cursory examination. I’ve never understood why Mann wouldn’t engage Steve in open battle, and these e-mails don’t answer that question except in a psychological sense.

• bender
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM | Permalink

  Re: Dave Dardinger (#303),

  I’ve never understood why Mann wouldn’t engage Steve in open battle

  Because mike, early on, took a hardline on an untenable position. The only question remaining is “why” – ie whether it was Overpeck that built this frankenstein.

Steve S.

This could be the wosrt attack on McIntyre

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=936&filename=1226500291.txt

bender

Andrew Revkin,
Will you now retract your absurd challenge to Steve to try get something past iron mike into the “peer” “reviewed” liturgy? You know how dumb you look now?

Calvin Ball

If this isn’t just dripping irony by the bucket:

From: Phil Jones
To: Tim Osborn , Michael Mann ,Gavin Schmidt
Subject: Re: attacks against Keith
Date: Tue Sep 29 09:17:12 2009

Mike, Gavin,
As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in soon, gradually during October and hopefully full time from November.
I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the threads on CA. As you’re fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre has done is going to be difficult.

G. Borba

First of all, kudos to Steve for his untiring work on CA! I have been going to this blog daily for nearly a year and have appreciated your careful analysis. Thank you!

I am so disappointed at reading (and reading about) these e-mails and other documents. Has science become such that it is no longer capable of policing itself, unable (or unwilling) to set up and enforce expected standards of openness, honesty and integrity? Do scientific breaches of ethics (which do appear to have happened) have to be uncovered by illegal hacking rather than through scientific bodies who are supposed to police and uphold high standards of conduct within the scientific community? When has character assassination of fellow scientists you disagree with become a sport?

Although I am deeply skeptical about the level of human contribution to global climate change (I can’t imagine it is zero, but don’t think it is nearly the level of importance that is hysterically presented) but I do believe that there are scientists of integrity that are studying climate science and we should support their work.
What I would suggest is there should be an ethical code adhered to by the climate science community, or any other scientific community, such as:

1. Open access to the data to all. Obviously, there will be some valid exceptions such as national security, terrorism and so forth where open access should not happen.

2. Open scientific debate and healthy skepticism. Science is never settled and open, skeptical inquiry should be a hallmark of good science, not something to suppress.

3. The greater the potential for scientific research to impact public policy the more open should be the debate. Uncertainties should be made explicit. This marriage of science and politics can make for a poisonous brew, as history has demonstrated before.

4. Scientists should be their greatest critics: too much hubris over what we know and too little humility on what we don’t know. For example, why have the population surface stations used in the climate research so dramatically decreased; today it looks similar to what it did in 1905. Why has there been little real evaluation of individual surface station locations in the United States and whether these stations locations are adequate to provide reliable temperature data for climate research?

I invite others to add to the list.

Gary Borba

Combat Wombat

Australian Media is very quiet on this, Newspapers are almost hiding the story with it being hard to find even when you are aware of it’s existence and the TV networks have not mentioned this in any way. One reason for this might be, is how does any of these outlets admit they are wrong or may be wrong.

MrPete

Team vs Non-Team comparison — I *really* like this idea (H/T to a commenter on WUWT.)

This would be a C. Loehle level of effort 🙂 … but what a great way to highlight what, if any, difference there is between reality as promoted by the Team, and reality as seen by the rest of the scientific world. Along the way (and this seems to be the hard part), we’d find out just how much usable data has been colored or influenced by the Team.

If they’ve been keeping all other perspectives out of the journals, is there any “respectable” non-Team-influenced material available?

Old Dad

Bender,

“Do you really think people like Judith Curry or Isaac Held or Rob Wilson would ever act that way? I don’t.” Nor do I, but what mystifies is that professionals would publish this sort of tripe even in supposedly casual and personal emails. It suggests a surprising naivete, parochialism, and, perhaps, arrogance.

theduke

There never was a “Team”. Just one bully of a captain and his faithful assistant, always trying to recruit a team, looking to play pick-up against “the contrarians”.

Yes, and they get to make up the rules and referee at the same time.

MIke

The code …
module check_results{
if results not equal “it’s getting hot” then call ignore-routine;
if results equal “it’s getting hot” then call publish_routine;
}

NW

I think much of the contents of these emails is the equivalent of boys’ locker room bluster that really doesn’t amount to much. It’s unseemly but nothing more. “What a tool…I mean, what a shame that a few bad apples can spoil things for everybody.” That’s Otter in Animal House. It is also from a certain email between two scholars I know, about a third scholar. It’s just rant and bluster. I am shocked, yes shocked, to read academics dumping on each other and Steve in emails. Round up the usual suspects.
.
But there is an important exception: The evidence of attempts to manipulate the journal publication process, the IPCC process, and so forth against perceived scientific foes and their considered scientific views.
.
My feeling is that this needs to be taken up by the professional societies that these people belong to. Self-policing needs to be done here. If Professor Curry (#330) is correct that the great majority of climate scientists are not part of this nonsense, I would think that her professional organizations can impose sanctions on people who appear to be manipulating (or attempting to manipulate) referee selection, editorial boards, IPCC reviewing and content, and so on. And, I would think these professional organizations really need to do something like this, so that the climate sciences can maintain credibility. Barring certain people from editorial and reviewing roles for several years would seem warranted.

theduke

NW:

. . .IPCC reviewing and content, . . .

I’m wondering how the leaking of this file will affect the IPCC process and its output, particularly in light of Steve’s recent disclosures about Briffa’s work. Could be significant.

Cold Lynx

Some at CRU seems to tell the truth.
At CRU Staff page does the programmer Ian (Harry) Harris stating that he is working with
” Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming”

Yes it stated on their website: data manipulation.

He is probably responsible for the file HARRY_READ_ME in the zip archive.

Tom C

#337 Judith Curry

One of the more interesting E-mails was from dendro Rob Wilson who expressed unwillingness to say anything that would contradict Mann. Gosh, I wonder why?

Mann’s behavior is appalling: the refusal to correct glaring errors in his papers, the tantrums, the gangster tactics (finally laid bare). Why can none of his peers screw up the courage to denounce him?

Only when this finally happens will climate science be on the way to restoring some credibility. Until then, it’s merely cowardly academics unwilling to tell the truth for fear of losing their funding and publication venues.

doug

Bender, Dr Curry,

I am very pleased that you have come out and said this is not business as usual. I have made two posts at realclimate, pointing out that peer review in fields in which I have participated does not engage in the behavior demonstrated in this sad pile of emails. The reply has been that the system is working fine. Obviously it is not.

For the sake of the dignity of science, please do not be shy about speaking out. Pressuring editors and collusion should not be part of peer review.

Geoff

Salute to John Daly – wish you were here to see it.

From: “John L. Daly”
To: Chick Keller
Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:47:57 +1100
Reply-to: daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: “P. Dietze” , mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael E Mann , rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas Crowley , Phil Jones , sfbtett@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, daly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, onar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jarl.ahlbeck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, McKitrick , Bjarnason , Harry Priem , vinmary.gray@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, balberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Martin Manning , Albert Arking , Sallie Baliunas , Jack Barrett , Sonja Boehmer-Cristianse , Nigel Calder , John Christy , cpaynter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, driessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dwojick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Myron Ebell , Ellsaesser , John Emsley , Jim Goodridge , gsharp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Peter Holle , Douglas V Hoyt , “W. S. Hughes” , Wibjörn Karlén , kidso@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, KIrill Kondratyev , “Dr. Theodor Landscheidt” , Ross McKitrick , omcshane , Pat Michaels , pbrekke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “David M. Ritson” , robert.balling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Segalstad , Fred Singer , Roy Spencer , Hartwig Volz , Gerd-Rainer Weber , tlowery@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rosanne D’Arrigo , k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Chick & all

the first is Keith Briffa’s rather comprehensive treatment of getting climate variations from tree rings: Annual climate variability in the Holocene: “interpreting the message of ancient trees”, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19 (2000) 87-105. It should deal with many of the questions people raise about using them to determine temperatures.

Take this from first principles.

A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra

We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests
grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or even hemispheric.

The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following
variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other.

sunlight – if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of
course.
cloudiness – more clouds, less sun, less ring.
pests/disease – a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce photosynthesis access to sunlight – competition within a forest can disadvantage or advantage some trees.
moisture/rainfall – a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought even if there’s a heat wave.
snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth temperature – finally!

The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of
temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from the other environmental variables.

In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to other evidence which contradicts Mann’s theory. The Idso’s have produced more of that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has `unearthed’ even more.

Mann’s theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue.
Anyone can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is
the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go, they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings – a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above.

The worst thing I can say about any paper such as his is that it is `bad science’. Legal restraint prevents me going further. But in his case, only those restraints prevent me going *much* further.

Cheers

John Daly

—
John L. Daly
`Still Waiting For Greenhouse’
http://www.microtech.com.au/daly

theduke

I just posted the follwoing at RC:

theduke says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
22 November 2009 at 11:37 PM

As one who had too many posts spiked on this blog, and will be surprised if this one gets through, I find compelled to state that there is a gorilla missing from the room that no one is talking about.

Where is Michael Mann and why is Gavin the only one responding to posts that question the veracity and integrity of this website, Phil Jones, CRU, IPCC and AGW in general?

Sharks

I saw a comment further up that said this isn’t the normal process of things. But I found this quote from a another climate scientist who is the head of large Climate research facility.

“scientists talking about science.” In an interview with Wired, Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, points out that “if you read all of these e-mails, you will be surprised at the integrity of these scientists.”

If he thinks that these scientist have any integrity, he’s just as bad as they are. After reading the e-mails for that matter.

Sharks

I like this line of their status update

In addition to supporting the police in their inquiries, we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it.

So does that mean they’ll be firing most of their current staff and get some really scientist?

David

And if I might just add, how is it possible that this group of what I might call climate charlatans was able to nearly convince the entire world to sign up to reduce their economic growth in the name of … what exactly? Have they now shame? Should Kyoto or Copenhagen have ever been fully implemented (with the U.S., India, and China) how many BILLIONS of poeple would see their fortuens turn for the worse over this travesty. The developing world would have seen its development slowed or halted and the developed world the same.

It is with cold comfort that I must recall the adage, “never underestimate the power of human stupidity”.

Peter Lloyd

The culture of an organisation derives from its top leadership. Prof.Jones is not the only scientist involved in this attempt to disguise activism as science.

The Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri, has issued a statement in response to the current scandal emphasising the objectivity of IPCC processes. But this statement is completely at odds with several public revelations of unprofessional manipulation of IPCC Assessment Reports.

Dr. Pachauri should also resign immediately and the IPCC should elect a respected meteorologist as Chairman.