A “Small Document”

Feb 7, 2010 – 9:58 AM

On July 29, 2009, Phil Jones emailed Tom Peterson of NOAA (1248902393.txt)

… I have a question for you. I’m going to write a small document for our web site to satisfy (probably the wrong word) the 50 or so FOI/EIR requests we’ve had over the weekend. I will put up the various agreements we have with Met Services.

The “document” was subsequently put up at the CRU website here and, as Jones said, it was “small” (1257 words plus references). Jones put up four scrappy agreements, none of which included language that supported his refusal to send me station data – that their confidentiality agreements precluded transmission of the data to a “non-academic”.

In today’s Times, the work involved in creating this “small document” of 1257 words increased to over 1000 hours.

Last year in July alone the unit received 60 FoI requests from across the world. With a staff of only 13 to cope with them, the demands were accumulating faster than they could be dealt with. “According to the rules,” says Jones, “you have to do 18 hours’ work on each one before you’re allowed to turn it down.” It meant that the scientists would have had a lot of their time diverted from research.

Jones blamed his notorious emails (e.g. his May 29, 2008 request that Mann, Ammann, Briffa and Wahl delete their correspondence on AR4 or his Feb 2005 refusal of station data to Warwick Hughes) on the provocation arising from the July 29, 2009 FOI requests for confidential agreements:

But he pleads provocation…. It was pure irritation, he says, that provoked him and others to write the notorious emails apparently conspiring to destroy or withhold data. “It was just frustration. I thought the requests were just distractions. It was taking us away from our day jobs. It was written in anger.”

And oh yes, Jones’ correspondent, Tom Peterson of NOAA, wrote back:

Hi, Phil,
Yes, Friday-Saturday I noticed that ClimateFraudit had renewed their interest in you. I was thinking about sending an email of sympathy, but I was busy preparing for a quick trip to Hawaii ...

Not Tahiti, as some speculated.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Tagged , | Comments (166)

Rose on Fortress Met Office

Feb 7, 2010 – 8:57 AM

David Rose of the Mail places the Met Office obstruction of FOI requests squarely in the spotlight.

The Met Office obstruction left a singularly bad taste with their sequence of untrue excuses for not producing John Mitchell’s Review Editor comments.

First, they claimed that Mitchell had deleted all the emails concerning AR4. (This excuse came on June 2, 2008, three days after Jones had sent an email asking Mann, Briffa, Ammann and Wahl to delete their emails concerning AR4. We know that Jones and Briffa had corresponded with Mitchell in March about Holland’s request to the Met Office for Review Comments. We do not know when Mitchell was supposed to have deleted his emails.)

When asked to search their server, they then claimed that Mitchell had acted in a “personal” capacity as IPCC Review Editor – sort of like NASA blogger Gavin Schmidt at realclimate – and thus they were not subject to FOI.

When asked whether Mitchell had claimed expenses and/or salary for IPCC meetings, they resiled from that excuse (without providing the requested expenses), settling on a refusal excuse developed at CRU – one so repugnant that even Phil Jones said that he felt like Sir Humphrey: that providing Mitchell’s Review Comments would interfere with UK relations with an international organization (IPCC).

Contemporary accounts of the progress of the Met Office FOIs are here here here here here.

There is a very interesting backstory in which “hide the decline” – the leading early Climategate story – leads directly to the story about FOI obstruction. I’ll try to get to that story some time next week.

The issue is by no means over. Despite its claims to be an “open and transparent” organization, the IPCC does not attorn to any international FOI legislation. Its cadres in the U.S. and U.K. have used the interference with international organization to immunize the actions of national IPCC cadres from national FOI.

In one of the Climategate Letters, Phil Jones planned to ask IPCC to seek even greater immunization of national cadres from FOI legislation. In my opinion, exactly the opposite needs to be done: in UK and US legislation regarding the relations with international organizations exemption, exclude relations with IPCC.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate, FOIA | Tagged , | Comments (61)

Leake: Today’s IPCC Blooper

Feb 7, 2010 – 8:53 AM

Jonathan Leake of the Sunday Times has another IPCC blooper for breakfast tomorrow, this one about a looming 50% decline in north African crop production, a claim that occurs not just in the eccentric WG2, but the Synthesis Report: Continue reading →

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Comments (25)

Slimed by Bagpuss the Cat Reporter

Feb 7, 2010 – 7:23 AM

As many CA readers know, I was slimed today in the Independent by reporter Paul Bignell, best known for his hard-hitting expose of Bagpuss the cat. Bignell reported:

The children’s television producer Coolabi has bought the rights to produce Bagpuss for television, but Mr Postgate’s son, Daniel, has scotched plans to bring the series back. Talking from his home in Kent this weekend, Daniel Postgate, a children’s author and illustrator, said he hadn’t liked the new proposals at all.

In a statement, Andrew Lloyd Weaver said that Bagpuss is a known henchman of Moriarty the Cat, the Napoleon of crime, who, Weaver believes, coordinated a simultaneous cyber-attack on the University of East Anglia and the theft of a laptop computer from the University of Victoria.

Paul Dennis at Bishophill says:

I am growing tired of the lazy, careless and vacuous journalism that seeks to smear by insinuation. This newspaper asserts that 2 prominent climate bloggers (who spoke at the Heartland Institute) who associate with Paul Dennis a 54 year old climate researcher at the University of East Anglia. I don’t know what the Independent is trying to insinuate but to me associate in this context strikes of conspiracy, subterfuge etc.
….

For an alternative view of the blogs, see Matt Ridley here.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (111)

Pielke Debate Online

Feb 6, 2010 – 3:41 PM

Maurizio Morabito’s twitter notes here. Audio here.

I’ve been trying for about 10 days to get a digital version of Muir-Wood’s data, sending three requests so far without an acknowledgement (Pielke Jr doesn’t have a copy of the Muir-Wood data.)

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (22)

Say My Name – February Rerun

Feb 6, 2010 – 1:38 PM

Science has published a Correction and Clarification to Kaufman et al (2009), see here. Since they only needed to correct four out of 23 proxies, there is no need to name those who pointed out errors. 😉 There is a small improvement over the draft version though; congratulations Hu!

We thank H. McCulloch and others who have pointed out errors and have offered suggestions.

Related News: Prof. Matti Saarnisto was in a discussion program (A-talk) on Finnish National TV (YLE TV1) on Thursday. My translation (and transcription!) of parts that may be of general interest here. [19:54-22:05]

Sari Huovinen (journalist): Matti, your own research result has been distorted in public. Tell us shortly, what was done.
Matti Saarnisto: Well, indeed, here … one of the persons who have been [lately] in public, professor Mann from The Pennsylvania State University. He has published several articles about the climate history of past thousand years. The last time it was last the history of last two thousand years [published] with many colleagues. In that [article], research material, from Korttajärvi near Jyväskylä, of my group was used such that the Medieval Warm Period was show as a mirror image.
SH: That is, the graph was flipped?
MS: The graph was flipped upside-down. And, and, … it was in Science in last August, and, …
SH: Why was that done, how do you interpret that?
MS: That is something I’ve tried to sort out … in this e-mail I received yesterday from one of the authors of the article, from my good friend prof. Ray Bradley in Chile, where he was traveling. There was a large group of researchers who had been handling an extremely large research material, and at some point it had happened such that this graph had been turned upside-down.
SH: So it was not done in purpose, it was a mistake?
MS: Well, when Bradley says so to me, I don’t doubt even a slightest moment. I hold him in high regard. He is one of the best paleoclimate researchers, and … a frequent visitor in Finland. But then that this happened yet another time in Science … in Apr… in November last year, a little before Christmas … again this Korttajärvi material, which was a part of Mia Tiljander’s PhD Thesis, Mia Tiljander is a known person worldwide, and … the article where the material appeared was published in 2003. Mia Tiljander was the first author, I was the second, and good, younger collogues of mine, Timo Saarinen and Antti Ojala, were then after…
SH: … yes …
MS: It has been turned twice upside-down in Science, and now I doubt if it can be a mistake anymore.

I’d like to point out to prof. Saarnisto that Michael Mann was not a coauthor in Kaufman et al. (2009). In fact, the only person who has been one of the authors in every three studies using upside-down Tiljander series is Raymond s. Bradley.

Later in the program (24:35-25:22) we have more.

MS: This group, who has now been in negative light in public, I know them and I have discussed with them, it has been slightly hard for them over the years … They have been somehow skeptical about this Medieval Warm Period and have tried to hide it to some extent. I have always thought that this was purely a case of scientific critique, but now in the last few days I have come somewhat to a conclusion that there is some purposefulness in this.
SH: That is, one is aiming at a truth?
MS: Yes, but how it is possible that this type of material is repeatedly published in these top science journals … it is because of the peer review process central to science. There is a small circle going around [“piiri pieni pyörii” (*)], relatively few people are reviewing each others papers and that is in my opinion the worrying aspect.

(*) This is a Finnish phrase (based on children’s song/play) I could not come up with an English equivalent (suggestions?). However, its meaning is clear from the rest of the sentence.

By Jean S | Posted in Kaufman 2009, Mann et al 2008, Mann et al 2009, News and Commentary, Proxies | Tagged , , , , | Comments (37)

Anatomy of Glaciergate

Feb 5, 2010 – 4:32 PM

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/

h/t to a reader

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Comments (32)

Guardian: “Not even clear that a crime actually occurred”

Feb 5, 2010 – 4:25 PM

The Guardian reviews the various theories on FOIA2009.zip, closing with what must be the absolute worst nightmare scenario for UEA. After observing that “so far, the police investigation has got nowhere.”, they state:

It is not even clear whether the crime of computer data interception has actually occurred.

They describe a scenario in which no crime occurred, observing:

If this hypothesis turns out to be true, UEA may end up looking foolish. For there will be no one to arrest.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (108)

Cicerone Then and Now

Feb 4, 2010 – 5:52 PM

Ralph Cicerone, President of the US National Academy of Sciences, has weighed in on the CRU and data sharing controversies – he’s now in favor of data sharing. While it’s nice that he’s seen the light, he has previously (in best Sir Humphrey style) manipulated the NAS panel terms of reference to avoid having to report on data problems in paleoclimate,
failed as President of NAS in ensuring that PNAS set an example of excellence in data archiving for paleoclimate articles and to use his personal prestige as President of NAS to request co-operation from paleoclimatologists who had refused to archive data used in the NAS panel report.

Cicerone writes today:

Contention over paleoclimatic data was at the heart of the UEA/CRU e-mail exchanges.

and that

Clarity and transparency must be reinforced to build and maintain trust

So it’s interesting to look back at how Cicerone himself has previously acted when he had opportunities to help build and maintain such trust, especially in respect to paleoclimate data.

In 2005, the House Science Committee sent a list of questions to Cicerone, which they wished to see resolved – including issues pertaining to MBH that were then the topic of controversy, including the mundane question of whether the “information required to replicate their work has always been available”.

Instead of establishing terms of reference that actually answered the questions asked by the House Science Committee, in best Susan Hassool-style, Cicerone re-framed the terms of reference, taking the House questions off the table. As previously noted, both at the time and recently, this created consternation at the NAS Panel presentations, when von Storch tried to answer the House questions – questions that many in the panel had apparently never seen and some didn’t want to address. See CA contemporary report here, where I reported:

Von Storch’s introduction of the Boehlert questions prompted a discussion about whether these questions were within the scope of the panel’s mandate. Von Storch criticized MBH replicability giving a very categorical answer to one of the Boehlert questions that was identical to ours. So the panel has testimony on the matter. We also pointed out that presenters D’Arrigo and Hegerl had not archived their data and had refused to make it available as part of the IPCC review process. This sparked responses from both D’Arrigo and Hegerl purporting to justify this and concerns by the chairman [Gerald North] about whether replication and data archiving was going off topic and distracting from the questions that they were charged with answering, even though these were obviously questions specifically asked by Boehlert.

My contemporary post included the following account of a statement by a staffer from the House Science Committee in the public discussion at the end of the first day’s proceedings:

Goldston, representing the House Science Committee, closed off the first day’s proceedings by observing as a public comment that the Science Committee realized that there were many large questions associated with climate change and recognized that there were many big and contentious issues still to come in the future. However, the Science Committee had intentionally asked some finite questions associated with current controversies [e.g. data availability], since they wanted to take at least a few small issues off the table.

I urge readers to re-read the Sir Humphrey post. As a result of this controversy, there was a slight change in the terms of reference of the NAS panel (see CA post here), which resulted in the North panel making a few references to data archiving, but they did not investigate such issues and their comments did not amount to more than pieties.

The NAS report of 2006 relied on many studies with unarchived data. I wrote to Cicerone (See CA here) , excerpt as follows:

In many cases, I have corresponded both with the authors and the journals in an effort to obtain such data without success. In some cases, the correspondence has gone on for nearly three years without resolution. In several cases, the NAS Panel relied on such studies, even hearing personal presentations, but did not take the opportunity to request the authors to archive their data. However, now that the NAS has relied on these studies, it is of paramount importance that these studies are closely examined to determine if their conclusions are robust, or have limitations such as the NAS panel described for Mann’s work.

I believe that a letter to authors who have refused to archive data and methods in a complete manner, coming from you in your capacity as President of the National Academies, which has just published a study relying on their reports, might be effective in achieving the mutually desired goal of inspiring the authors to archive their data and methods. In Lonnie Thompson’s case, since some of the results have recently been published in the Proceedings of the NAS, the request could also be made via the journal.

In an Appendix to this letter, I have set out missing and pertinent data for six authors. Considering all of the above, I request that you promptly write to each of the authors asking that they promptly archive the data at the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology or other archive acceptable to the NAS. Thank you for your consideration.

Cicerone refused to take any action on the grounds that he could not “command” the authors to do so, which I already had expressly acknowledged – I merely asked him to request that they do so. The post goes on to say:

I then wrote to Gerry North who, to his credit, agreed to write to the various authors.

This praise seems to have been undeserved, as North’s purported agreement seems to have been a “trick” – in fact, he seems to have done nothing.

In 2007, I tried to obtain Lonnie Thompson’s data following his publication in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences see CA here. Despite clear policies that on their face require the archiving of large data sets, PNAS refused to require Thompson to provide a comprehensive archive of his sample data. The complicity of PNAS in Thompson’s evasion is reported at CA here.

But today’s a new day. In my original post, I quoted Sir Humphrey as follows:

“It is axiomatic in government that hornets’ nests should be left unstirred, cans of worms should remain unopened, and cats should be left firmly in bags and not set among the pigeons. Ministers should also leave boats unrocked, nettles ungrasped, refrain from taking bulls by the horns, and resolutely turn their backs to the music.”

Cicerone wisely realizes that this will no longer work:

In the wake of the UEA controversy, I have been contacted by many U.S. and world leaders in science, business, and government. Their assessments and those from various editorials, added to results from scattered public opinion polls, suggest that public opinion has
moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent. This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.

Cicerone in best bureaucratic tradition has called for yet another meeting, this time calling for an outcome with “explicit actions”:

Later this month, at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Diego, NAS and AAAS will lead a discussion of these important issues, examine points raised by the UEA/CRU situation, review best practices, and encourage scientists to develop standards for data access that work in their fields. The outcome of this special session must be explicit actions, as scientists must do much more now, and with urgency, to demonstrate that science is indeed self-correcting and worthy of the public’s trust.

I noticed two other Sir Humphrey quotes from my original post which seem timely in relation to climate science.

Sir Humphrey anticipating climate scientist obstruction of information on methodology and data:

“If people don’t know what you’re doing, they don’t know what you’re doing wrong.”

Sir Humphrey summarizing exchanges between realclimate and climateaudit – something here for both sides:

“Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure.”

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments (100)

The Mann Report from Penn State Inquiry Committee

Feb 3, 2010 – 3:26 PM

Is here. I’ll comment later. See RA-10 here and RA-47 here

4 p.m. A couple of quick points. Readers should understand that I have limited expectations from this sort of inquiry. What I do expect is that the authors not make untrue statements that can be easily disproven. (At least make them hard to disprove.)

Point 1. Penn State President Spanier is quoted as saying:

“I know they’ve taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides,” Spanier said.

The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [Since they are required to provide a transcript or summary of all interviews, I presume that the Inquiry did not carry out any other interviews.] What does Donald Kennedy know about the matter? These two hardly constitute “looking at issues from all sides”. [A CA reader observed below that “North [at a Rice University event] admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release.”] They didn’t even talk to Wegman. Contrary to Spanier’s claim, they did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer.

Point 2. The Penn State Committee stated:

The so-called “trick” was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.

This is untrue on a variety of levels. The “trick” is not a “legitimate” statistical method; its essence is the failure to show adverse data. See Climate Audit here or the DailyMail here. Did they do any investigation of the “trick”? They don’t even seem to have read the relevant Climate Audit post – only realclimate.

Point 3. The Report states:

The allegation inquires about whether Dr. Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. In 2006, similar questions were asked about Dr. Mann and these questions motivated the National Academy of Sciences to undertake an in depth investigation of his research.

Similar questions may have been asked in 2006 but the National Academy of Sciences panel did not carry out an “in depth” investigation into whether Mann had “deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” Ralph Cicerone of NAS, together with Gerry North, drew up terms of reference that specifically excluded such an investigation. This is discussed in CA post Sir Humphrey and the Boehlert Questions.

While the Science Committee had asked questions about MBH, Cicerone did not submit these questions to the NAS Panel. Cicerone framed the terms of reference as follows (See the Sir Humphrey post for context):

the committee will summarize current scientific information on the temperature record for the past 1,000-2,000 years, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change. The committee will address tasks such as identifying the variables for which proxy records have been employed, describing the proxy records that have been used to reconstruct surface temperature records for the pre-instrumental period, assessing the methods employed to combine multiple proxy data to develop surface temperature reconstructions, discussing the geographical regions over which proxy data can be reliably extrapolated, and evaluating the overall accuracy and precision of such reconstructions.

When Hans von Storch showed the Boehlert questions in a PPT slide, it caused great consternation for the panel – many of whom had never seen the Boehlert questions – and they had a hard time deciding whether they would entertain von Storch’s presentation on these matters.

Panelist Christy asked Mann whether he had calculated a verification r2 for the AD1400 step and what it was. Notwithstanding overwhelming evidence that the verification r2 statistic for this step had been calculated along with the RE statistic, Mann famously said that he had not calculated a verification r2 statistic as that would be a “foolish and incorrect reasoning”. No one on the panel asked Mann why he had shown verification r2 results for the AD1820 step or why it was calculated in the same step as the RE statistic – though they had been briefed on both points. Instead, North and the panelists sat there like bumps on a log. My contemporary post on Mann’s presentation is here and noted:

Christy did ask Mann: “Did you calculate R2?” ‘? Mann’s answer was: “We didn’t calculate it. That would be silly and incorrect reasoning”‘?. Whenever I hear this statement in my mind, the following phrase runs through my mind: “I did not have r2 with that statistic, Miss Lewinsky”.

We had discussed the verification r2 issue in considerable depth on the previous day, even showing a graphic in which Mann had shown verification r2 for the AD1820 step. However, no one on the panel challenged Mann either about his claim that they did not calculate the r2 statistic or why it would be “silly and incorrect reasoning”‘? to calculate the r2 statistic – a point which is not only not self-evident, but incorrect. Perhaps the non-statistical panelists were reluctant to step into an area where they were not experts, given Mann’s aggressive and dismissive response to Christy. However, Nychka and Bloomfield, as statisticians, should have stepped here. I’ve pointed out Nychka’s association with Ammann (he is acknowledged in Wahl and Ammann [2006]); Nychka is a decent guy, but he should have made way for an independent statistician.

Mann arrived at the NAS presentation shortly before his presentation and left immediately after answering the panel questions (before any public questions.) I criticized the panel at the time for not resolving the verification r2 issue that had been specifically mentioned in the very first letter from NAS to the Barton Committee. North and the others sat there like bumps on a log. After the session, Nychka came up to me and said that just because they didn’t say anything about Mann’s verification r2 answer didn’t mean that they didn’t notice what had happened. But then they didn’t deal with it.

Update: 11 pm: The Inquiry Report stated that Mann “consented to the public release” of the report. RA-10 says:

A written report shall be prepared that states what evidence was reviewed, a copy of all interview transcripts and/or summaries, and includes the conclusions of the inquiry.

The Inquiry Report says that their interview with Mann was recorded and transcribed. Despite the RA-10 requirement that the written report include a “copy of all interview transcripts”, the Inquiry Report did not contain a transcript of the interview with Mann. The Inquiry Report stated that Mann provided a ten page supplemental written response to the matters discussed during his interview. Contary to RA-10, this was not included in the written report.

The Inquiry Report said that Gerald North and Donald Kennedy were interviewed. Once again, despite RA-10 requirements, the Inquiry Report did not contain a transcript and/or summary of the interviews with North or Kennedy.

RA-10 said that the Inquiry Report should state “what evidence was reviewed”. It also states:

Documentation in sufficient detail to permit a later assessment, if necessary, of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted shall be maintained for a period of at least three years by the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, and shall be made available upon request to any involved Federal agencies.

Here is how the Inquiry Report describes what evidence was reviewed:

It was agreed that these individuals would meet again in early January and that they would use the time until that meeting to review the relevant information, including the above mentioned e-mails, journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the National Academy of Sciences report entitled “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,” ISBN: 0-309-66144-7 and various blogs on the internet.

Does the statement that they looked at “journal articles, OP-ED columns, newspaper and magazine articles, the NAS report and various blogs on the internet” constitute acceptable “documentation” at Penn State for a freshman essay, much less for an Inquiry Report required to provide “sufficient detail to permit a later assessment, if necessary, of the reasons for determining that an investigation was not warranted”.

Speaking of which – the only evidence said to have been considered by the Inquiry was what was already in the public record. They did not examine any of Mann’s correspondence that was not already on the public record. RA-10 states that “Relevant research records, documents, and/or materials shall be immediately sequestered.” This does not appear to have been done.

By Stephen McIntyre | Posted in climategate | Tagged , , | Comments (246)