Here is an interesting Swedish documentary on Climategate, with some of the first footage of Jones, who, as has been observed from time to time, looks quite frail from the experience. At least half is in English and you can follow it without Swedish.
The image of the words “hide the decline” is a motif that recurs throughout the video. These words animated much of the early attention. The failure of the “inquiries” to confront the most notorious email is both disappointing and inexcusable.
Mann gives an “explanation” at about minute 22.20. Mann (rough transcript):
The original publication was about that problem [the decline] – it was hardly something they were hiding. What Phil Jones was saying, in a clumsy way, was that he didn’t want to include bad data, data after 1960 which known to be unreliable, so he talked about hiding the divergence problem, hiding the decline, by not showing the bad data.
Here, as so often in this affair, one sees someone who purports to be a “scientist” making unsupportable statements. There is no evidence that the tree ring density data after 1960 is “bad data” in the sense that it was measured incorrectly, that there was some sort of instrumentation or measurement problem. On its face, the density data shows that this particular proxy didn’t respond in a linear manner to warmer temperatures in the late 20th century. See here for a blog discussion of the IPCC and the trick and here for a longer (updated) exposition.
Mann states, as though it were a fact, that the Climategate dossier originated by someone “literally breaking into an academic institution”. To my knowledge, there is no evidence at the present of a “literal break-in”, with many commenters presuming that the dossier was compiled by someone at the UEA. Mann accuses critics of “dishonestly cherrypicking and looking for words out of context”. However, no Climategate defenders, including Mann, have provided additional contextual material justifying the words in question. I, for one, have gone to considerable lengths to place matters in as precise a context as I can and, in my opinion, the words in context are generally worse (a view shared by Mosher and Fuller in CTUTape Letters and to some extent by Fred Pearce in The Climate Files.)
Jones was asked about data withholding. Unfortunately, the question wasn’t sharply posed – Jones wasn’t asked why he sent data to “friends” (Scott Rutherford, Mann, Peter Webster), while claiming that confidentiality agreements prevented him from sending data to others. Jones (about minute 28) discusses matters very late in the day (when the supposed confidentiality agreements were sought after years of stonewalling):
I’m not sure how we could have acted differently. We tried to respond where we could. We put up the agreements we had. A lot of the time we didn’t have the information that they were after. it became obvious that it was just time wasting in responding because they would just go on to something else, with another question and it was just taking up to much of our time.
Gavin Schmidt explains that they aren’t “saints” nor “Mother Teresa”, a point on which he and Climategate critics can undoubtedly find common ground, as though this were a reason for not providing data to critics:
We’re not climate scientists because we’re saints, we’re not Mother Teresa. People who launch off – we’re know you’re a fraud, but give me all your data, all your time and all of this. You know what – people are not going to be well disposed. Given all the things that they could be doing with their time, they’re not going to spend time with these people.
Here, as so often, Schmidt, although purporting to be a “scientist” is disseminating disinformation. My suggestion throughout has been for scientists and journals to archive data and metadata at the time of publication. This removes the temptation to give preferential treatment to friends. Archiving code will, in many cases, avoid the need for someone asking a question about the methodology. Scientists have spent far more time thinking up reasons not to archive data than to archive it in the first place.
In addition, scientists have wasted both their own time and time of critics by giving untrue answers in refusing data.
Climate Audit 
50 Comments
Mannn says
What does he mean “bad data”? Was it data that was collected improperly and was in error. Apparently it was not. It was data that was not giving them the results that they expected.
It was not bad data
To say it was bad data is being anti-science
Apparently Mann’s belief is that ‘bad data’ is data that doesn’t correspond to what he thinks it should look like.
So instead of fixing the analysis, he ‘fixes’ the data.
A nice vehicle for Mannian, Schmidtian, and Jonesian disinformation.
Additionally, the video seems to spend some time trying to equate an interest in the science of climate change with tobacco companies, which seems a stretch given that those interested in climate change are requesting openness for data and algorithms and tobacco companies tried to keep data hidden.
I thought the programme was not too bad (apart from wasting time on the false analogy of smoking). Both sides were given the chance to explain their case – but one side more than the other of course. Steve and Ross were excellent. Why can’t documentaries like this be made in the UK or US?
Someday, they will be.
Maybe you got another impression from just listening to the English parts, but the feedback I got from Swedish people with no special knowledge in the area was that the programme made them believe that everything anti-AGW was pjust ropaganda from big oil and that Steve McIntyre was paid by them.
Sorry to say. I must agree with “X”. I wrote an angry letter to the producer. Tobacco and Wegman were the main reason for my angreeness.
I agree, as a norwegian i understand the swedish parts, and this was all carefully constructed by the old formulae:
1. Pretend to be fair to both parts.
2. Bring in an “impartial” “judge” to rule in favour of your preconceived view.
3. Link the opposition to cancer deniers and greed-based political movements.
4. Criminalize the opposition by bringing in death threats, etc.
So this was no unbalanced documentary with an honest intention of finding any truth. The whole ide behind the film was obviously to further the agenda of AGW and giving the conclusion credibility by pretending to give both parts a fair go.
Those, mostly old folks, at the Heartland gathering look right out of Rosemary’s Baby. Also, there is no denying that the cheesy anti AGW videos from McKitrick’s institute *do* bear a very strong resemblance to the tobacco propaganda. Somewhat disappointed to learn of this.
I must admit, that as a skeptic of catastrophic AGW I often struggle to identify with some of the people who share this view.
Anyway, the film was quite uninteresting as it only scratched the surface of the controversial issues.
BTW, why is Mann cruising around in a car!?
To Pax Re: pax (Nov 9 13:44),
It’s probably heavily armoured!
Iain
“There is no evidence that the tree ring density data after 1960 is “bad data”
In “New Science” bad data is data that doesn’t support their preferred theory and outcome and therefore must be “bad” or “wrong” because New Scientists don’t make mistakes about preferred outcomes and theories.
Naomi Orestes discussed the tobbaco industry, I paraphrase ” The tobbaco industry fought against the science”
She could just as well have said that “Climate Scientists (Hockey Team) fought against the science” with exactly the same validity.
For your information…
Being a native of Sweden, I must say that this “documentary” was better than expected. The open minded Svenssons over here at least got to know some little bits of the Climate Gate story.
As pointed out above, it just scratched a little on the surface.
But you should be aware of that this was really the first time, that the SVT (the Swedish State TV Co) brought up the subject after Nov 19th of last year.
And it took nearly a month before you could observe any news at all about it in the MSM.
We have thus been totally dependent on the information that can be obtained via the internet.
So please, keep the up the good work you are doing on this blog.
BoE, no joke, I was glancing at the previous climateaudit post with SVT2 muted and I saw a document on the screen out of the corner of my eye that looked somewhat familiar and then I saw Steve’s face… I was shocked and quickly put the volume on. I was disappointed in the program as a whole but as you say it was better than expected. As long as Vattenfall concentrates on building phrenology clinics or wind farms for the UK and is able to fend off the eco-groups who keep trying to shutdown the nuclear plants I will be happy.
BoE, den här gjorde mig förbannad!
10:29 – “Stoppa Vattenfalls kärnkraftsplaner”
-http://playrapport.se/video/2228655#/video/2228626
That’s easy for YOU to say!
“We’re not climate scientists because we’re saints, … Given all the things that they [climate scientists] could be doing with their time, they’re not going to spend time with these people [anyone who disagrees].”
Which is exactly right. Why should Schmidt waste time responding to requests for data when he could be using that time for gatekeeping at RC? Geeesh.
I agree that this “documentary” was very welcome here in Sweden, and the beginning was good. Halfway through though I think it became pretty clear the producers hands were tied and instead of getting into the science they served up the usual story about evil hackers paid by big corporations and the whole thing got politicized. SVT2 is the states channel for propaganda. Still, it might have planted a seed somewhere.
I find it very difficult to believe that critical data was actually accidentally lost. First, it gets backed up automatically. Normally when you are do an experiment or a model test, you write a little test report explaining what the inputs were, where the outputs are, and a brief analysis (probably including some graphs illustrating what you learned) describing the results. You do this just to keep track of how the project is progressing and to have a historical log of what you’ve done that you can look back on when you are wondering what to do next. Test data is precious. It is really all about the test data. You get to where you can look at the raw numbers, graph them in your mind, and understand what it means.
A far simpler and more believable explanation is that the guys who threatened to “lose” their data on purpose so it would not be available to their “tormentors” did just that.
In my humble opinion, I think some of you have totally missed the point with this video. It is actually a very cleverly made video, with an almost subliminal message showing how the “climate change deniers” in a coordinated fashion, through lobby groups and such have influenced the public and media and subsequently destroyed confidence in the field of climate science.
One such hint among several, is found in the swedish voice over. I know swedish is not global but I also think it shines through in the other bits as well.
At 49:27 the swedish voice over says (my translation follows):
-“Mest allvarligt är kanske det politiska pris som hela klimatkriget inneburit. Även om förtroendet för klimatforskningen återupprättas och media och forskare bättre lyckas hantera PR-kriget i framtiden så har kampanjen för att så tvivel lyckats. USA befinner sig idag lika långt som någonsin från att ta itu med klimathotet.”
-“The most serious is perhaps the political price that the entire climate war has meant. Even if the confidence in climate science is restored and media and scientists get better at handling the PR-war in the future, the campaign to sow doubt has succeeded. USA are situated today as far as ever away from dealing with the climate threat.”
Re: AdderW (Nov 9 19:35),
Sadly, I thoroughly agree with you.
I would not have agreed with you, however, until Naomi Oreskes appeared; from then on, it was, as you say, an almost subliminal message, very cleverly done. In particular, Oreskes’ message “they sow seeds of doubt in order to cause confusion and stall the action needed” – for fiscal reasons – was amplified over and over, in different ways, through different actors.
Her entry seems cleverly designed, in retrospect, to say, see how sensible those sceptics looked to you! see how easily they have fooled you! And when one feels one has been duped, as this programme allows, the “awakening” brings a rush of fear. Be afraid! Be very afraid of these sceptics! See how reasonable they look! They will stop at nothing!
However, I live in hope that some will see through the dupe, and recognize the classic villain’s ploy: point the accusing finger at those who are about to uncover one’s crimes, and accuse THEM of those same crimes. Every single member of the Team gave accurate descriptions of themselves when claiming and believing they were referring to sceptics. Jones “going for the people, not the science”. Mann “cherrypicking out of context” etc etc.
What revolted me most was the association repeatedly implied (not stated, still less proven) between Big EXXX and the funding of all the “sceptics”/”realists” – when we know that the funding, and in particular the oil funding, goes to the “warmists” in spades more than to the “sceptics”.
I agree with Lucy. Oreskes became the focal point of the documentary at one point and was given entirely too much time to disseminate propaganda, along with Schneider and Schmidt. At a certain point in the video, the voices of AGW are given obvious precedence. If you measured the amount of time skeptics were given in the last 20 minutes of the program compared to that of the Mann et al, it was probably 4 or 5 times as much in favor of the hockey team.
I also found the tobacco analogy insulting and completely irrelevant to any discussion of climate change. You could do the same thing with eugenics and attack the “consensus view.”
Lindzen was given no time at all. And Singer only a few moments.
Bad and biased journalism.
Almost subliminal? I thought with the tobacco industry references from beginning to end and the time devoted to Oreskes it was more like a 2×4 across the side of the head.
Hi Lucy,
I had the same feeling by looking at the film. The first halve was quite balanced, but the moment that Oreskes was interviewed the balance was gone. But I suppose that for Swedish norms, this was already a lot better than the 100% pro-CAGW-consensus of a year or so ago…
@ Tag wrote: What does he mean “bad data”?
He means it didn’t fit his theory and therefore needed to be hidden. Note that that doesn’t mean hidden in a bad way, but hidden by ‘trickery’ – which is OK.
Time to send a ‘Happy Anniversary’ card to the Norfolk Police & NDET, along with the quote from Mann. He obviously has vital information which should be made available to investigators ASAP.
Someone claimed on another blog that only trees on the tree line make good thermometers. I was wondering: 1) Is that true and 2) can a tree expected to be on the tree line for 100’s of years? I also don’t buy the proposition that suddenly the trees in question are a worse thermometer than before 1960. I don’t know that “they” have proved that trees are good thermometers in the first place. I would be happy to hear from anyone with first hand knowledge.
Treeline trees are not that good: the treeline of the notorious bristlecone pines in the SW US Sierra Nevada shifted several hundred meters up and down during the past millennia, e.g. from the MWP to the LIA and back. Some tree stumps can be found above the current treeline, others are near the treeline today, but where below the treeline then. Thus any change in response to temperature (and/or precipitation) because of the treeline would reflect in the tree rings over different periods.
This was discussed at the New Statesman “50 people who matters”, between some “warmers” and me about the strip bark pines. A recent attempt to restore the “robustness” of bristlecone pines as temperature proxy was the main point:
Click to access 0903029106.full.pdf
But that was easely rebutted:
“Thanks for the link, but wait a minute: the report shows a huge difference in growth between pines near the upper tree limit and those grown on less elevated sites, even if only 150 meters lower.
The problem remains: a small change in local temperature at elevation increases growth far more for the same type of pines. Further the three sites at lower elevation show a negative (!) correlation with temperature for the same type of trees, this is quite strange and not explained in the article.
And others have found quite different results at the same sites. From a comment mentioned by the NAS panel report cited at CA:
Click to access Whitewing_txt.pdf
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/17/salzer-et-al-2009-a-first-look/
“Deadwood tree stems scattered above treeline on tephra-covered slopes of Whitewing Mtn (3051 m) and San Joaquin Ridge (3122 m) show evidence of being killed in an eruption from adjacent Glass Creek Vent, Inyo Craters. Using tree-ring methods, we dated deadwood to 815-1350 CE, and infer from death dates that the eruption occurred in late summer 1350 CE….Using contemporary distributions of the species, we modeled paleoclimate during the time of sympatry [the MWP] to be significantly warmer (+3.2 deg C annual minimum temperature) and slightly drier (-24 mm annual precipitation) than present.”
Note that the stumps of trees from the MWP were above the current tree line…
After all, this documentary is the same old story about evil deniers funded by big corporations like Exxon spreading doubt like the tobaco industry. I am tired of the tobaco analogy. Mann, Jones and company are welcome to move out from their nice and warm offices and join the 1.5 billion people who does not have electricity. Mitigating climate change is utterly anti-human. The notion that we can mitigate carbon emission by energy savings and moving to renewable energy sources conveniently denies 4-5 billion people from civilized life. Yes, 2 billion people in the developed world could probably cut back some of its energy use and move to a combination of nuclear and renewable energy sources, but the bulk of growing energy demand is obviously coming from the developed world. Climategate had little to do to the failure Copenhagen. Copenhagen failed because the BRIC countries (Brazil, India and China) increasingly oppose the vision of the western world to be stuck in the middle ages. I won’t be surprised if Chinese scientists (trained in the US) will start to publish papers soon (based on modified version of models from NASA-GISS, MIT, NCAR, etc.) arriving to very different conclusion about the significance of climate change.
Oreskes, in my opinion, appeared weak with her claims that the deniers have spread doubt about settled science similar to the deniers of knowledge that smoking causes disease. The documentary gave far too much time to her thesis.
If you read her papers on the subject – the first one about the “consensus” on AGW and the second one that ties three AGW skeptics with the pro-smoking movement, it is easy to see how shallow her analysis goes. I have heard a number of IPCC members use her papers to refute those of us with skeptical viewpoints – nothing but ad hominem attacks with limited truth. She is supposedly a science historian, but clearly in my view, a very poor one.
Oreskes is an activist, and certainly does not have the competence to judge whether or not the science is settled.
She’s simply acting as counsel for the defendents who were caught red-handed. So far they’ve gotten off on technicalities. But everyone knows what the rightful verdict in this case really is.
The programme was more balanced than anticipated. It was made by a Jens Ergon (who also appeared throughout as the interviewer of Jones and Mann etc). Ergon is a far-left-wing person – who among other things started the Swedish branch of Attac.
I would like to point out the existence of a Swedish blog http://www.theclimatescam.se that has numerous comments on this programme, and many other topics related to “climate” and “environment”. See e.g. http://www.theclimatescam.se/2010/11/08/kvallens-vetenskapens-varld/
The blog has a translation option (see upper right area) so that postings and comments can get translated to several languages. Actually it works quite well.
Gavin Schmidt – “We’re not climate scientists…”
Couldn’t have put it better myself – for the calamatists reading here, that’s quoting someone out of context, compare and contrast to the leaked emails, the full context of which could easily be clarified by the relevant parties.
Would you buy a second-hand automobile from Jones, Mann or Schmidt?
No, as this Swedish documentary clearly demonstrated, you certainly wouldn’t!
That loss of public trust has done for the Hockey Team.
I agree with those who think the video was heavily biased towards AGW. The tobacco story plus Oreskes went unanswered. Pictures of M and M at conferences saying little to camera, were designed to reinforce the message that “deniers” have nothing to say. Quite appalling.
At one point Schmidt commenting on the email that called the MM papers “garbage” said “They are garbage.” The man has no right to call himself a scientist.
Especially given his dreadful paper in the international Journal of Climatology, which commits one elementary statistical confusion (autocorrelation in the dependent variable is run together with autocorrelation in the residuals) and one elementary mistake (failing to notice his coefficients lie outside his estimated confidence intervals). See
Click to access mckitrick_revised.pdf
And for the unedifying story of teh review procedure for McKitrick’s paper see
Click to access response_to_ijoc.pdf
I might just add that the original Schmidt paper was refereed by Jones and given the most cursory review, which hailed the totally confused autocorrelation discussion as very important and failed to challenge the coefficient issue at all. the complete substantive part of the review is as follows
“Review of Schmidt
This paper is timely as it clearly shows that the results claimed in dML06 and MM07 are almost certainly spurious. It is important that such papers get written and the obvious statistical errors highlighted. Here the problem relates to the original belief that there were many more spatial degrees of freedom. This is a common mistake and it will be good to have another paper to refer to when reviewing any more papers like dML06 and MM07. There is really no excuse for these sorts of mistakes to be made, that lead to erroneous claims about problems with the surface temperature record.
My recommendation is that the paper be accepted subject to minor revisions. I have grouped my comments into minor changes that are needed, and a second set of thoughts that the author might like to consider to help clarify his arguments. It is certain that this paper will get read by a particular type of climatologist, so it ought to be as clear as possible. I’m happy if all the thoughts are ignored.”
The common mistake is not a mistake at all. Autocorrelation in the dependent variable is not a problem – it is a feature of the data. If it is adequately explained by the independent variables so that the equation residuals are not autocorrelated there is no problem. The interesting feature of the data has been adequately explained. Jones does not seem to know what he is talking about. It’s this combination of arrogance and ignorance which makes me sceptical.
The Jones review can be found at
http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/documents/review_schmidt.doc
I think the classic polarisation of the debate; with the two end members, being the heartland institute (cooling) and the Team (warming), almost entirely misses the crucial middle ground where global temperature change may not be disputed, but its the certainty of the rate of change and significance of the trends that are key. Perhaps, oddly; I though of these when Oreskes mentions uncertainty.
The eagerness with which Mann and Gavin present the polished and sachrin sweet explanations for sloppy science/records is depressing.
With my limited swedish… yes it unfairly put SM in as heartland hit man….paid to do a job.
This sign, from now on, means that it is a joke -> !
The days I’ve spent trying to discover which research unit she worked in, what her views of short-centered PCA applied to bristlecone series were … you mean, it was all wasted?
Gavin!
As expected from the swedes. You never get anything other than the official story over there. No wander the swedes are the most climate-believing country in the world. They think it is because they are well informed, but of course they are only informed by media bent on maintaining the current political consensus.
A sorry state of affairs in our neighboring country (I am norwegian).
But still – anyone watching this will leave feeling that Steve is an honest and jovial fellow, while Gavin and Mann come off as the more scheming, political players. Hopefully this in itself will lead some curious swedes to investigate further!
Sorry to say Oslo, but the official line of policy in Norway isn’t any better, with a prime minister who still believes that the science is settled and who is willing to squander a lot of money on his CO2 cleansing and storing project. Not to mention the minister of environmental affairs….
Comment from a scetpical Dutchman living in Norway
The claim that a handfull of sceptics like Steve have thwarted the IPCC and most governments on pure propaganda sure does stretch the old credibility. It does not occur to these guys that maybe 1) people like Steve M. ask good questions about bad studies, 2) policy based on sloppy science doesn’t inspire confidence, and 3) bad behavior and bullying can be detected by people without a Ph.D. and don’t inspire confidence.
Can we all spell “C.Y.A.”? There must be a Swedish equivalent, too …
The best part must be Gavin Schmidt at 29:12:
“Exclamation mark. Right? It’s a joke! Right? It’s a joke!”
He’s funny 😀
its really fun reading all of the comments here.
i agree that its weird that they dont make all the data public.
however, even if they did hide “bad data”. the other climate stations around the world had matching results. why focus on the one only thing that diverts from majority?
especially when nobody ACTUALLY knows what is happening to our environment – the science of climate is kind of “new” and most of the theories is, in fact theories. so having a really strong belief in anything here is pretty much pointless at this time.
this, in my eyes seems more like a discussion of different people saying: “lets be careful” or “it doesn’t matter what we do”. where the other seem kind of a pretty naive way of looking at the world. even if the climate question is a hoax, it might become an issue in the future if more greenhouse-gases are released.
to understand nature i recommend watching the power of the planet series, i think its a pretty good program who describes how earth systems work.
also, the main reason why i personally think we should think about what we put out in the air and water is not mainly co2 but other more dangerous chemicals that ends up in ourselves when we breathe and drink.
and if you dont like people making money out of this, then try to realize there’s far more money involved in NOT doing anything.
What is not apparent for those not knowing Swedish, is that the translation from English to Swedish contains several errors. Errors, that probably are intentional and have a different meaning compared to the English original. Such as “present the uncertainties” becomes “emphasize on the uncertainties” when translated.
Agreed. Oreskes was given way too much room to be able to label this documentary ‘objective’. And the narrator (notwithstanding his lousy diction) furthered her message in the second half, by mis-translating and by commenting as described above.
Not as much State Propaganda as the conviction of the journalist though, I believe (although Sweden is pretty leftist, the majority of the journalist corps are waaay left).
But it was interesting to hear Mann, Jones, Smith comment on it all.
The only reason why people do not believe in climate change is very simple.
IT IS CALLED MONEY
Money can manipulate peoples mind. I mean look at America. The country where everything is being censured by the corporations. People have no idea what is really going on. The truth is more frightening then people think. This is also a reason why people do not believe in it. Humans do not want to believe in anything as frightening as the truth.
Steve, thank you for this link (which you might want to update as it has apparently been moved).
IMHO you do a very admirable job of “saying what you want to say, and nothing else,” which is difficult, and along the lines of the old adage that “I would have written a shorter letter, but didn’t have the time.”
Any decent lawyer would applaud your efforts in this vein, and I know the difficulties of self-discipline involved. Sure, your critics will still find fault with whatever you say, but it seems to me that your style creates more friends than critics.
I hope you keep it up, I mean, in that careful style of yours. It is your most valuable asset, more valuable even than your analysis, which is of course very valuable on its own, but worthless if no one reads it. So please keep up that cordial tone.
-Paul
Just to update the link to the Swedish documentary (Steve’s link doesn’t point directly to the video but rather to the page where all the videos are located. Eventually, the ClimateGate “documentary” will be scrolled out of sight.):
http://svtplay.se/v/2226725/vetenskapens_varld/del_12_av_18__climategate?cb,a1364145,1,f,-1/pb,a1364142,1,f,-1/pl,v,,2226725/sb,p102815,1,f,-1
One Trackback
[…] looks quite frail from the experience. At least half is in English and you can follow it … Make sure to check out the original source Cancel […]