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 .
-
Tip Jar
(The Tip Jar is working again, via a temporary location) -
Pages
-
Categories
-
Articles
-
Blogroll
- Accuweather Blogs
- Andrew Revkin
- Anthony Watts
- Bishop Hill
- Bob Tisdale
- Dan Hughes
- David Stockwell
- Icecap
- Idsos
- James Annan
- Jeff Id
- Josh Halpern
- Judith Curry
- Keith Kloor
- Klimazweibel
- Lubos Motl
- Lucia's Blackboard
- Matt Briggs
- NASA GISS
- Nature Blogs
- RealClimate
- Roger Pielke Jr
- Roger Pielke Sr
- Roman M
- Science of Doom
- Tamino
- Warwick Hughes
- Watts Up With That
- William Connolley
- WordPress.com
- World Climate Report
-
Favorite posts
-
Links
-
Weblogs and resources
-
Archives
Climate Audit 
38 Comments
I’m overwhelmed, as I suspect are others. Can someone explain the significance of all this, or point to the most important parts?
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
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.
So is the David Rind the “co-author of the chapter (w/ the initials D.R.)[who]
has behaved poorly”?
The “ill-behaved” David Rind versus Scissor-Hands “Peck”:
1105653626.txt
Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:00:26
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
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.
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.
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
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.
I enjoyed Seth’s analysis of the mineral exploration industry:
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….
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.
> 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?
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.
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?
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!
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.”
The contextual conversation in a more readable setting (the original one?), with complete headers: http://bit.ly/7NQfvQ
“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.
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?
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.
I must say I wouldn’t mind some clarification either. What does “MSU” stand for? Who’s “D.R.”?
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).
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?
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.
Off topic question:
Is there a new link to the “Ohio State presentation?” This link…
Click to access ohio.pdf
no longer works.
Steve: replace .org with .info for now.
best regards,
Tom Moriarty
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:
Click to access ohioshort.pdf
JBean,
Thank you.
Tom
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
WHAT IS THE url for ROMAN’S blog? Thanks
boballab’s comment (with Steve’s reference) includes the link.
The one I use is: http://statpad.wordpress.com/
Thanks CC Rick
heleo to Hu McCulloch, thanks for the link