Mann: “Let’s enjoy the media fiesta… “

From an email from Mann to Ammann, Rahmstorf, Briffa, Osborn and Jones on Aug 12, 2005:

Meanwhile, lets enjoy the media fiesta on …

Needless to say, the media fiesta was not at the expense of a Team member. Go here and in chain here .


38 Comments

  1. Thomas Shapard
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 8:36 PM | Permalink

    I’m overwhelmed, as I suspect are others. Can someone explain the significance of all this, or point to the most important parts?

  2. Matt Pearson
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

    The tenor of this debate is changing. This is a good report on all of this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html

    Matt Pearson

    • dirac_delta
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

      Wow, this is the best summary pf Climategate I’ve seen from any news source to date. McIntyre should put a prominent link to this story on his site.

  3. Not Sure
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    So is the David Rind the “co-author of the chapter (w/ the initials D.R.)[who]
    has behaved poorly”?

    • bender
      Posted Dec 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

      The “ill-behaved” David Rind versus Scissor-Hands “Peck”:
      1105653626.txt
      Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:00:26

  4. Ron Cram
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    Steve, did you link to the correct emails? I think you want http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=582&filename=1123860080.txt and

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=583&filename=1123881502.txt

  5. Al
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:09 PM | Permalink

    Phil Jones: “Instrumental data are perfect proxies, after all.”

    Sometimes, just wow. “Average gridcell temperature” is not “The temperature right next to my thermometer.” Better? Sure. Perfect? … Wow.

  6. Cara
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:14 PM | Permalink

    I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but the Associated Press has just published a report claiming that according to their investigation “Climate emails are petty, not fraudulent”. You (Steve) are mentioned in the article, with heavy favoritism given to Mann rationalizing why it was okay for them to call you a “bozo, moron, and fraud.”

    Here is the link to the article. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment//

    This kind of thing infuriates me; this debate if FAR from over and I am *astonished* that a mainstream media outlet would take it upon themselves to make such a proclamation after having 5 reporters read over the leaked emails. Such blatant attempts to manipulate the minds of the masses tells me something.

    What does it tell you?

    Thank you for being so rational, fair-minded and meticulous in your work to get to the bottom of this. Keep it up.

    • John M
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM | Permalink

      Cara,

      Note the first author, who appears to be on rather friendly terms with the folks he’s “investigating”.

      http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=987&filename=1248785856.txt

      On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:

      Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
      It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
      Marc Morano
      is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
      Seth
      Seth Borenstein
      Associated Press Science Writer

      • Cara
        Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 12:14 AM | Permalink

        It is as smelly then as I was suspicious it was. I hate to be cynical, but I don’t believe much of what we’re spoon-fed in the media about these things. So much for unbiased journalism, science, or pretty much anything in this day and age. Follow the money.

    • nanny_govt_sucks
      Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 12:19 AM | Permalink

      I enjoyed Seth’s analysis of the mineral exploration industry:

      McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is “substantially retired” from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.

      Which industry does not produce greenhouse gases? I guess quilting doesn’t. Oh, wait, someone has to drive those old ladies to the community center….

    • Skip Smith
      Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 2:46 AM | Permalink

      Readers have rated that story only 1.5 out of 5 stars, so don’t worry — I think most people see it for the crap that it is.

    • LMB
      Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 2:53 AM | Permalink

      > I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but the Associated Press has just published a report claiming that according to their investigation “Climate emails are petty, not fraudulent”.

      > This kind of thing infuriates me; this debate if FAR from over and I am *astonished* that a mainstream media outlet would take it upon themselves to make such a proclamation after having 5 reporters read over the leaked emails. Such blatant attempts to manipulate the minds of the masses tells me something.

      The AP is consistently left-wing. They have an agenda like scientists. They are no different than the NYT, and usually have the same slant/stories. (The NYT often takes its cues from the AP.) Is the new AP report about the same as the NYT editorial on Climategate?

      New York Times hides the decline

      http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5342

      That Climate Change E-Mail (NYT EDITORIAL)

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06sun3.html

      The AP assigned 11 reporters to go through Sarah Palin’s trash but one for “Climategate”? :)

      I love how the NYT and AP are making fools of themselves. When this Climategate thing finally shakes out, we’ll all have a record of the stupidest things that were said about Climategate, and they’ll never be able to take it back. There will be no excuses. They are ruining their own reputations.

      P.S. Since when was the AP into editorials? Isn’t it supposed to be news only, not opinion?

  7. liberalbiorealist
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

    snip – you’ve attributed an email to Phil Jones when it was written by someone else (David Schnare) and got this backwards. Look more carefully. The comment is relevant but the premise is just going to confuse people so I’ve snipped it.

    • liberalbiorealist
      Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM | Permalink

      Oh, another point.

      Isn’t there still another email in which they admit that the hockey stick pretty much starts falling apart even in the more recent reconstructions if you strip out more than a very small number of proxies? What’s left of the hockey stick after that acknowledgment, combined with the assertions above from Jones and Wegley?

  8. boballab
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:44 PM | Permalink

    Here is an interesting piece of work. It looks like GHCN has been “massaged” to get an artificial trend built in. This was something I noticed while checking what GISS but out compared to the slightly adjusted data GISS starts with from GHCN. I noticed that GISS had a tendency to alter the older data but leave the later years alone so that it seemed that they were trying to get the dame trend line on all their data. This person at the following link checked the GHCN did the same thing. Starting in 1900 it looks like they massaged the data to get about a .25 C increasing trend.

    http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/

    Steve: PLEASE find a relevant thread for this sort of comment. There are dozens of threads – better on an old topical thread than the first one that you notice. HAving said that, I urge readers to read Roman Mureika’s interesting post and comment at his blog!

  9. chainpin
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    Indeed, this is a robust account of Climategate that the author(s) have put forth.

    That graphic is perfect for TV too, it sure puts much needed context around the phrase, “hide the delcine.”

  10. Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM | Permalink

    The contextual conversation in a more readable setting (the original one?), with complete headers: http://bit.ly/7NQfvQ

  11. Chris R. Chapman
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

    “With regard to the Hockey Stick, it is highly unlikely that a single site can be very important. M&M have made similar accusations in the past and they have been shown, in the peer-reviewed literature, to be ill-founded.”

    – Tom Wigley, 1254751382.txt

    —-

    Indeed.

  12. Paul Linsay
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 11:55 PM | Permalink

    Does anyone understand what “spin up” means in the second set of letters on “Storch drift”? Is it something to do with the models? Can anyone clarify what they are talking about?

  13. David L
    Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 1:18 AM | Permalink

    These emails are stunning. I am a non-scientist who has followed the issue closely. I actually read the IPCC reports, various AGW believing books, this blog for several years and other blogs like Real Climate. I can say that I am now firmly convinced that the data purporting to show AGW is so flawed that it should not be relied on by anyone in making policy. Whether this notion will ever seep into the minds of American policy makers is less clear to me. A lot of people are heavily invested in notions that now are highly suspect, but by and large these are not people inclined to admit error. Be careful of winning the battle and losing the war.

    Steve: serious scientists believe that there is an important problem using arguments unrelated to CRU. Don’t go a bridge too far. They are suffering from the present bad publicity, but haven’t in the past spoken against prior conduct by the Team.

  14. Chris
    Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 2:05 AM | Permalink

    I must say I wouldn’t mind some clarification either. What does “MSU” stand for? Who’s “D.R.”?

    • Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

      For the convenience of almost everyone who isn’t in on the lingo, CA has a list of acronyms, linked in the left margin under “Links”. MSU is Microwave Sounding Unit, the satellite temperature system that has been in place since 1979. Two groups compute average surface temperatures from this complex data, UAH (the Christy-Spencer team at U. Ala. Huntsville), and RSS (whose definition escapes me, but it’s in the list).

      “Not Sure” above (940PM 12/12) suggests that DR is David Rind, a name I haven’t heard before. See also my comment below (936AM 12/13).

  15. INGSOC
    Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 2:11 AM | Permalink

    I can’t help but notice that the European press is referring to the CRU emails etc as “leaked”. Do they know something more about the source?

    • MikeE
      Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

      I doubt it. FWIW, the recent BBC Radio 4 documentary “The Report” (featuring both Steve and Bishop Hill among others) used the word “hacked” exactly one, and “leaked” exactly once (unless I missed some), presumably in an attempt to appear balanced.

  16. tommoriarty
    Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 3:11 AM | Permalink

    Off topic question:

    Is there a new link to the “Ohio State presentation?” This link…

    http://climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf

    no longer works.

    Steve: replace .org with .info for now.

    best regards,
    Tom Moriarty

  17. JBean
    Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 4:15 AM | Permalink

    Tom Moriarity @ 3:11 AM:

    You can find it on the upper left-hand column, under the “Hockey Stick Studies” link.

    McIntyre, S. 2008b. How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium?. Ohio State University Seminar, mAy 16, 2008.
    The high-res link you posted doesn’t work, but the low-res link does:

    http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf

    • tommoriarty
      Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

      JBean,

      Thank you.

      Tom

  18. Dr. Ross Taylor
    Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 6:52 AM | Permalink

    A bit chilly in Copenhagen now, fortunately all the delegates are nice and cosy in expensive hotels, being paid for, that’s right, by you and me. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations.

    In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C. Please note, I am using the highs, to put the strongest possible case for the warmists.

    Day 1: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average high of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.
    Day 2: a high of 7 C, the same.
    Day 3: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
    Day 4: a high of 6 C
    Day 5: a high of 5 C, 6 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
    Day 6: a high of 3 C, 8 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
    Day 7: a high of 2 C, 9 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

    I must be dim, as I obviously can’t grasp the science of global warming.

  19. Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

    I’m afraid I don’t get this one, Steve. The fiesta referred to in the 2nd (2005) set of e-mails was to be over the MSU report, ie Microwave Sounding Unit satellite temperatures. A high reading would be a legitimate occasion for a media blitz by those concerned about warming. This might be overblown, perhaps, but nothing personal or sinister.

    The first (2009) set has no reference to a fiesta or e-mails by Mann, so I’m not sure why it’s relevant.

    The first does have the astonishing exchange:

    Mike,
    Yes it was him !
    Phil
    At 17:17 12/08/2005, you wrote:

    Hi Phil,
    Yeah–I’ve been told that one of the co-authors of the chapter (w/ the initials D.R.)
    has behaved poorly. Fortunately, w/ Peck, Stefan R., and Keith all authors on the
    chapter, it sounds as if the voices of reason are prevailing…
    mike

    Not Sure (at 940PM 12/12 above) suggests that the “misbehaving” author DR is David Rind. Is that your understanding?

    This would be worth a thread in itself, either here or on Anthony’s site.

    • Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

      According to the Daily Mail article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html, NASA’s David Rind, if he is indeed “DR”, is “still misbehavin'”!

      Now he’s questioning whether current temperatures are warmer than any in the past 1300 yrs.

    • Not Sure
      Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

      If you search for “David Rind” on this site you’ll come up with several posts on the FOIA requests to CRU for correspondence with IPCC lead authors. This suggests to me that David Rind is indeed the author referred to in the email.
      .
      His crime? Making “crap” comments regarding MM. The “voices of reason are prevail[ed]“, however.
      .
      We already knew that Steve’s review comments were ignored or brushed aside for unsatisfactory reasons. What we may have here is evidence that even a lead author was similarly brushed aside by an organized clique with an agenda.

    • bender
      Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

      “I’ve been told that one of the co-authors of the chapter (w/ the initials D.R.) has behaved poorly”
      .
      Michael Mann, party whip. One wonders what the line is between acceptable versus “poor” behavior.

  20. Posted Dec 13, 2009 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

    That Daily Mail article just rocked Copenhagen to its core. It will be the talk of the next few days at least. And politicians should be wondering if they are standing to close to something that is about to blow up on their political careers.

  21. jack mosevich
    Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    WHAT IS THE url for ROMAN’S blog? Thanks

    • CC Rick
      Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

      boballab’s comment (with Steve’s reference) includes the link.

      The one I use is: http://statpad.wordpress.com/

      • jack mosevich
        Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

        Thanks CC Rick

  22. Posted Dec 14, 2009 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

    heleo to Hu McCulloch, thanks for the link

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: