A
DIRECTORY
Return to MAIN HISTORY INDEX
"BEWARE OF PROFITS MAKING PROPHETS"
others suggest
"BEWARE OF PROPHETS MAKING PROFITS "
both are likely true!
"It's not the crime, it's the cover up that eventually brings them
down"
Climate Change Science is a
“meta-discipline” that should be embracing the diversity of knowledge
disciplines. (no one knows
everything about everything). A
Professional Generalist knows a little about everything but is not
recognized by the academic world and is therefore excluded from the
process. “We are told by Al Gore and David Suzuki the
self-appointed Pope and Archbishop of the “Church of Climatology” that
carbon emissions will wipe out humanity.” If the website of your research has
been shut down to hid history and the guilty 488 to 443 million B.C. During
the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what
they are in 2010, and the temperature was lower. Increases
in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not
precede them.
56,000,000 B.C. The worlds average temperature
increased 13° F causing many mammals to become extinct. Animals tend to
shift locations as a result of climate change.
33,700,000 B.C. Antarctica was a greenhouse and
changed into a icehouse. Scientists believe a rapid drop in carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere caused a worldwide cooling resulting in
Antarctica. In 2009 an international team of researchers led by
University of Hong Kong geologist Zhonghui Liu studied deep sea-cores from 11
locations around the world, the largest core sample size so far.
Global sea-surface temperatures fell by an average of 4.5 to 6° F,
temperatures near the South Pole and the North Pole dropped 9 to 11° F.
CO2 (Carbon) is the most likely culprit. 79,000 B.C. Sea levels were 1 meter higher than 2010 and carbon was
lower. Satellite data suggests sea levels from 2005 to 2010 have been
decreasing.
12,700 B.C. temperatures shot up 18° F because of natural
climate-change cycles. About this time mammoths, camels, mastodons and
ground sloths began to disappear.
1159
A.D. The
Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum occurred between 800 -
1300 A.D. with the Medieval Climate Anomaly occurring 1159-1176.
Many believe the MWP was warmer in Europe than 20th century climate. There
is insufficient data in the southern hemisphere to support the European
data. Australia data is wanting. The Antarctica date is
some times the exact opposite of European data suggesting an unknown climate
anomaly or a poorly understanding of the European data. Ice core data, sea
surface data and tree ring data don't always agree. La Nina, El Nino
oscillation patterns combined with the changing gulf stream intensity causes
climate anomaly. Another significant factor is the jet stream stalling and
change. Sun spot activity cannot be tracked with any accuracy over time. Some believe we just don't understand climate or have the ability
to model it.
In Ireland tree ring analysis showed a strange anomalies occurred this
year. For about 200 years there was rapid growth then abruptly in 1159 the
tree ring growth virtually stopped until 1176 when the growth returned to
normal. This has been interpreted as Global Warming before 1159 followed
by Global Cooling for 17 years. The real question is was this phenomena
regional or global, and was it caused by cold, lack of sun or lack of
water. If it was global then Siberia and Canada tree ring data would
support the Ireland data. Also southern hemispheric data would also
support the Ireland data. If not then it might be northern hemispheric
only or just regional. If regional then the Gulf Stream is suspect.
However Ireland tree ring analysis suggests that tree growth virtually stopped
from 1159 to 1176. Some think the warming gulf stream may have
stopped. Others think that the sun was masked by a comet or asteroid striking
the earth. Others suggest it was caused by volcanoes but critics say that
only lasts for a year or two before settling out. The other option is
drought. See 2354 B.C. in European section for a similar tree ring anomaly.
Other dates are also offered but most are wanting.
1860 The official record for temperatures only dates to about this time.
1861 February 23, John Tyndall believed that a lower level of carbon dioxide
(C02) gas might explain the ice ages. He first proposed the green house
effect. Others suggest Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)
first proposed the greenhouse effect in 1824.
1890 June 23: “Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate
summers and open winters through several years, culminating last winter in the
almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes
the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the winters are not
as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked
diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.” – New
York Times, June 23, 1890 This was before the industrial
age and C02 emissions
1895 February 24: “The question is again being discussed whether
recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second
glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a
tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the
polar regions.” – New York Times, Feb. 24, 1895
1895 An Australian glacier expert, Cliff Ollier of the University of
Western Australia, accuses the IPCC of being “deliberately alarmist” with
its predictions about melting glaciers because he says the organization has a
vested interest in global warming. “Glaciers started to retreat in 1895 when
there was no correlation to global warming,” Ollier says. “Now we are
seeing a general retreat on glaciers because we are coming out of an ice age,
but there is nothing alarming about it. These retreats are not caused only by
temperatures.”
1923 August 9: Professor Gregory of Yale University stated that “another
world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the
Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear
as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be
“wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 1923
1923 September 10: “The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat
and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the
conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age – Time Magazine,
Sept. 10, 1923
1933 March 27: Headline: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776;
Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” – New
York Times, March 27, 1933
1934 December 15: “America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists
to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains
and deeper snows and the colder winters of grandfather's day.” –
Associated Press, Dec. 15, 1934 It's noteworthy that 1934 was
the hottest year in the 20th century according to NASA.
1937 May 30: Warming Arctic Climate Melting Glaciers Faster,
Raising Ocean Level, Scientist Says – “A mysterious warming of
the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a
"serious international problem," Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish
geophysicist, said today. – New York Times, May 30, 1937
1954 August 29: “Greenland's polar climate has moderated so consistntly
that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals,
vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish
species in the area's southern waters.” – New York Times, Aug. 29,
1954
1958: In the scientific community, the idea of human causation, of
climate change, was probably started by David Keeling in 1958, when he
observed that CO2 increases he was measuring at the South Pole seemed to match
the increase in the combustion of fossil fuels during recent decades. Keeling
devoted most of his life to measuring atmospheric CO2 and founded the modern
research facility at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. His speculation wasn't improper and
his surmise was certainly worthy of investigation, but many scientists adopted
the proposition of anthropogenic causation as a matter of faith, not science, as
history has proven. It's noteworthy that the Antarctic often acts the
exact opposite than the Artic. Some believe it is because of the ozone
hole over the south pole.
1958 May 31: “An analysis of weather records from Little America
shows a steady warming of climate over the last half century. The rise in
average temperature at the Antarctic outpost has been about five degrees
Fahrenheit.” – New York Times, May 31, 1958
1958 December 7: “Several thousand scientists of many nations have
recently been climbing mountains, digging tunnels in glaciers, journeying to
the Antarctic, camping on floating Arctic ice. Their object has been to solve
a fascinating riddle: what is happening to the world's ice? – New
York Times, Dec. 7, 1958
1960's “Exaggeration and alarmism have been a chronic weakness of
environmentalism since it became an organized movement in the 1960s. Every
ecological problem was instantly transformed into a potential world-ending
crisis, from the population bomb to the imminent resource depletion of the
“limits to growth” fad of the 1970s to acid rain to ozone depletion,
always with an overlay of moral condemnation of anyone who dissented from
environmental correctness. With global warming, the environmental movement
thought it had hit the jackpot — a crisis sufficiently long-range that it
could not be falsified and broad enough to justify massive political controls
on resource use at a global level.”
1961 January 30: “After a week of discussions on the causes of
climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to
have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.” –
New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961
1962 December 23: “Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber,
the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslope of an immense
climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age.” – Los
Angeles Times, Dec. 23, 1962
1969 John P. Holden (2009 Obama Science Advisor) and co-author Paul
R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not
initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to
bear will not fend off the misery to come. The world would experience
famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping
resources. These scary people proposed that "the battle to feed all
of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people
will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.
The solution to overpopulation: "compulsory birth regulation... (through)
the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses
of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the
desired family size. This is the eugenics philosophy of Adof Hitler,
only worse.
1969 February 20: “Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is
circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice
is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within
a decade or two." – New York Times, Feb. 20, 1969
1970 January: “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of
sunlight reaching earth by one half . . . ." – Life magazine,
January 1970
Claims were made that the polar bear population of 25,000 were
vulnerable and 70% would decrease by 2050 because of Global Warming but by
2008 their population had increased. The increase is likely because more
open water allows more seal harvesting by the polar bears or the counts were
wrong.
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to
support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to
wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have
reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” •
Life Magazine, January 1970
1970 January 26: Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water
vapor, "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a
new Ice Age will be born.” – Newsweek magazine, Jan. 26, 1970
1970 April 22; The first Earth Day was the brainchild of
Gaylord Nelson, the Democratic senator from Wisconsin. The Earth
Day was modeled after the Vietnam-era "teach-ins".
More than 2,000 colleges and universities across America paused their anti-war
protests to rally instead against pollution, global warming/cooling and
population growth. Even Congress recessed, acknowledging that the environment
was now on a political par with motherhood.
Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions as follows:. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of
dead fish.” – Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day, 1970 Earth
Day evolved over a period of seven years starting in 1962. The
New York Times began the proliferation of environmental events.
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years
unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an
environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the
world as a suitable place of human habitation." – Barry
Commoner (Washington University), Earth Day, 1970
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate
action is taken against problems facing mankind.” “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the
survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human
habitation.” • Barry Commoner, Washington University
biologist
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely
to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and
possible extinction.” • New York Times editorial, the
day after the first Earth Day
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever
small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until
at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the
next ten years.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have
escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of
unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate
food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” •
Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim
timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread
by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By
the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist
under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire
world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia,
will be in famine.” • Peter Gunter, professor, North
Texas State University
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of
time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land
will be usable.” • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using
up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new
ones.” • Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using
up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil.
You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll
say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” • Kenneth
Watt, Ecologist
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute,
believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the
species of living animals will be extinct.” • Sen.
Gaylord Nelson
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the
global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.
This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” •
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
GOVERNOR NELSON ROCKEFELLER, MAYOR LINDSAY, PAUL NEWMAN, ALI MCGRAW TO
NAME A FEW BELIEVED THIS CRAP!
CAN YOU BELIEVE IN THE GULLIBILITY OF PEOPLE, IT'S LIKE TWENTY MILLION
LEMMINGS AGREED TO MARCH OVER A CLIFF.
1970 April 21: Rockefeller University biologist and Pulitzer Prize-winning
writer Rene Dubos made the shocking suggestion that, "To some overcrowded
populations, the bomb may one day no longer seem a threat, but a
release."
1970 July 18: “The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting
large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming
more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously
thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of
ice ages.” – New York Times, July 18, 1970 1971 Maurice
F. Strong b-1929 an advocate of 'Global Warming' and 'Greenhouse Effect'
caused by mankind gathered the opinion of 158 scientists for the 1st state of
the United Nations Environment Programme planned for 1972
1971 July 9: “In the next 50 years, fine dust that humans discharge
into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the
sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an
ice age." – Washington Post, July 9, 1971 1971
October 24: “It's already getting colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps
not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat
fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes. . . .”
– Los Angles Times, Oct. 24, 1971
1972
June 12: Stockholm Conference Maurice F. Strong b-1929 was Secretary
General of the United Nations 1970-1972 a Canadian who now lives in China and
believed: 1974
August; Margaret Mead an anthropologist established the (AAAS) American
Association for Advancement of Science and at a conference in 1975 October at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina stated "Instead of needing
lots of children, we need high-quality children" this eugenics philosophy
originated in the 1920's in North America and culminated in 1945 with Adolf
Hitler. The post Hitler, eugenics movement became "conservation and
Environment" focused. Mead was likely embitter, by her book in
1928. which was classed as a fraud, having been humiliated by the natives in
her studies of the sex loves of South Pacific Island. She organized
"The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering" She proposed the
"Law of the Atmosphere" to limit population. 1976 Maurice
F. Strong b-1929 an advocate of 'Global Warming' and 'Greenhouse Effect'
caused by mankind was CEO of Petro-Canada 1976-1978. It's hilarious for
the Environmental Brotherhood to claim Big Oil is behind Climate-Gate.
You will later see Greenpeace lobbying Shell Oil. 1978 January 5: “An international team of
specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end
in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern
Hemisphere.” – New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978 1978
February: William W. Kellogg, Meteorologist of (NCAR) National Center
for Atmospheric Research at Boulder Colorado writes; " We must
resort to reasonable assumptions", We assume the atmosphere is the main
"Working Fluid" of the heat engine." 1978 February 18: “A poll of climate specialists
in seven countries has found a consensus that there will be no catastrophic
changes in the climate by the end of the century. But the specialists were
almost equally divided on whether there would be a warming, a cooling or no
change at all.” – New York Times, Feb. 18, 1978 1979: Arctic sea ice was first measured this year and it
has not changed substantially by 2010. Antarctica has 90% of earth's ice
and has been growing into 2010. The Arctic is 1°cooler than it was in
the 1940's.
1979:
The First Global Revolution (1997)
1980 Paul Ehrlich, Stratford University biologist sketched out his most
alarmist scenario for the Earth Day issue of The Progressive,
assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including
65 million Americans, would perish in the "Great Die-Off."
1986
Paul Ehrlich (believes in eugenics a philosophy of the Adof Hitler, only
worse)
credited science czar John P. Holden also a eugenics advocate (future Obama
science advisor) with forecasting that CO2
(Carbon-dioxide) climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion
people before 2020. Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball notes
that John P. Holden turned up in the Climategate files belittling the work of
astrophysicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian
Center for Astrophysics in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division.
Holden put "Harvard" in sneer quotes when mocking a research paper
Baliunas and Soon published in 2003 showing that "the 20th century is
probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last
millennium." First, deny. Next, deride. They
promoted him to the Whitehouse.
1986 June 11: “A global warming trend could bring heat waves, dust-dry
farmland and disease, the experts said... Under this scenario, the resort town
of Ocean City, Md., will lose 39 feet of shoreline by 2000 and a total of 85
feet within the next 25 years.” – San Jose Mercury News, June 11,
1986 1988 The Climate-Gate scandal based on about 1,000
E-mails and 3,000 Documents leaked from the (CRU)-Climate Research Unit in
United Kingdom on November 17, 2009 has set back climate science research back about
20 years, so says a climate researcher. Computer experts believe the data was not hacked or
stolen and that 100mb of data is still missing and not published.
The fundamentals of Global Warming have been compromised and more
seriously scientific integrity is lost. Climate-Gate really began with
the creation of (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United
Nations Agency, which appears to have an agenda of World Government.
Actually the World Government concept predates Climate-Gate.
Climate-gate focuses is on the University of East Angila in England only
because that is where the whistle blower originated.
The (CRU) Climate Research Center in Angila had a mandate to gather
world wide climate data and control the release of data to the world.
The real focus should be on the (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. This United
Nations agency will go down in infamy as more details emerge. 1988 The (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, an United Nations Agency was established this year by (WMO) World
Meteorological Organization and (UNEP) United Nations Environment Program, to
orchestrate global reaction to the perceived threat of man-made global
warming. The obvious objective of
IPCC is to find the hand of man in climate change.
The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do
the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself.
The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published
scientific literature.The IPCC is
only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP which has virtual control over
content. The powerful WMO
Executive Council is presided over by Alexander Bedritesky (2003-2007) and was
formally in the Russian Federal Service of Hydrometeorology and environmental
Monitoring (Roshyrromet) (1989-2003) 1988 May 12:Mike Baillie wrote To: Keith Briffa 1988 June: Former U.S. senator Timothy Wirth (D.,
Colo.) confessed to rigging a June 1988 Capitol Hill hearing to make it appear
warmer than usual. "We called the Weather Bureau and found out what
historically was the hottest day of the summer," Wirth said on an April
2007 edition of PBS’s Frontline. "So we scheduled the hearing that day,
and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to
it." Wirth then committed outright deception. "We went in the
night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air
conditioning wasn’t working inside the room," Wirth told correspondent
Deborah Amos. At the next day’s hearing, "it was really hot,"
Wirth explained. TV coverage showed a top NASA scientist and “warming”
proponent sweating through his statement... 1988 June 23: James E. Hansen addressed a
congressional Committee as an advocate of Global Warming. He is the head
of GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) (1987-2010) which is accused of
falsifying global temperature to support alleged Global Warming. Some
suggest he testified in court that eco-terrorism are not guilty of damaging a
British Power Plant because they were acting in defense of humanity. He
said coal-fired power plants are factories of death and coal trains are death
trains. In 2008 he claimed the CEO of EXXON/Mobil and other companies
should be charged with treason for denying man made global warming. June
23, 2009 he was arrested along with 30 environmentalists against Massey Energy
Company. Fellow scientist accused him of being over reactionary.
He is increasing isolated by climate scientists. This sounds like a
deranged man capable of violence and capable of falsifying temperature
data. He has also been responsible for teaching University students, who
should be tracked down and deprogrammed. 1988 October 8: Rashit Hanntemirov from Russia noted that during 750-1450
A.D. a relatively high number of trees were noted and that there is no
evidence of moving polar timberline in the north during the last century,
implying that warming has been common in the past and nothing unusual was
happening today. The reference to 750-1450 supports the long-held
scientific view on the existence of a (MWP) Medieval Warm Period that was likely
hotter than the 20th century and could not possibly be man made. A
couple of weeks later, another Russian, Eugene Vaganov, wrote "the
warming in the middle of the 20th century is not extraordinary. The
warming at the border of the 1st and 2nd millennia was more long in time and
similar in amplitude." 1988 December 11: The Kyoto Protocol was known by many to be
based on a fraud, including the (IPCC) Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations Agency. Climate-Gate becomes
politicized and became a political-religious movement rather than a science
based endeavor. Enterprising people saw the potential to make
billions, like the selling of indulgences in Medieval Europe. Scientists
were happy as research grants began to flow.
One estimate places that $2.7 million flowed to Phil Jones while others
suggest 13 million flowed to (CRU) Climate Research Unit of the University of
East Angila which was mandated by IPCC to collect and present climate data 1989 May 15: .“Global warming could force Americans to
build 86 more power plants -- at a cost of $110 billion -- to keep all their
air conditioners running 20 years from now, a new study says...Using computer
models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual
temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010, and the drain on power would
require the building of 86 new midsize power plants – Associated
Press, May 15, 1989 1989 September 17: “New York will probably be like
Florida 15 years from now.” -- St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17,
1989 1990 "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be
desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought,
causing crop failures and food riots . . . [By 1996] The Platte River of
Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie
topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut
down computers . . . The Mexican police will round up illegal American
migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.” – "Dead
Heat: The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect," Michael Oppenheimer and
Robert H. Boyle, 1990. 1990 The first chairman of the IPCC, Sir John Houghton, who
produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 and wrote in
his book Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, in 1994: 'Unless we announce
disasters no one will listen'," Watson the second chairman of the
IPCC says he disagrees with Houghton on this point. (This quote first
appeared in print November 2006 in a newspaper column written by the
journalist Piers Akerman in the Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph) 1990 Siegfried Frederick b-1924 an atmospheric physicist was
opposed to man made Global Warming and started this year SEPP (Science and
Environmental Policy Project) he was labeled a 'skeptic', a' contrarian' by
the 'Climate Gate Gang'. 1990's from the leaked document files no author
listed: "Options appear to be: 1990
October 14: Publication of "Northern
Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties,
and Limitations" also known as Mann et al (1999) written by Michael
E. Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes, that included the infamous
"Hockey Stick Graph". The terms 'uncertainties and
limitations' would soon be dropped. The infamous
"Hockey Stick Graph" would become the poster graph of the
Climate-Gate Gang and the IPCC. It would be refined by Michael E. Mann,
Phil Jones and Keith Birffa over time. In 2007 Canadian Stephen
McIntyre discovered it was 'impossible' for Jones et al 1999 to have carried
out their work as claimed. This opinion was later supported by British
climate skeptic Doug J. Keenan. Phil Jones finally admitted February 16,
2010 they were correct that they failed to keep records about the location of
Chinese weatherstations. 1992 Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions
to Protect Global Climate Did you read it carefully, 'we believe' we
think the Armageddon is upon us! 1992 June Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan
Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote: 1993 Mr. Trevor Davis was director of infamous (CRU)
Climate Research Unit (1993-1998). He
is a member of the council of the (RMS) Royal Meteorological Society.
1994 During the period 1994-1996 Ken Lay of ENRON envisioned
a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program. He believed ENRON could make
billions from a program like this. ENRON contributed $990 thousand to
the Nature Conservancy whose climate change projects promotes a Global Warming hypotheses.
In total ENRON donated $1.5 million to research to prove Global Warming is CO2
related and is man-made. Lay new the next step was to convince the US
Government to embrace his concepts.
Former IPCC lead author Ben Santer openly admits that he
altered portions of the 1995 IPCC Report to make them "consistent with
other chapters". 1995: Johathan Patz of the
University of Madison, Wisconsin, a lead author of IPCC reports in 1995
1998 – 2001 - 2007 and according to the UW-Madison and WHO (World
Health Organization) team, other model-based forecasts of health risks from
global climate change project that made the following ridicules claims:
1995 Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR),
completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable phrase
"the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global
climate." You may recall that this 1996 IPCC report played a key role in
the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Remember this name 'Benjamin D. Santer' he will go down
in history as one of the more cynical members of the Climate-Gate Gang.
The event is described by Nature [381(1006):539] and in a
1996 WSJ article by the late Professor Frederick Seitz. Seitz compared
the draft of IPCC Chapter 8 (Detection and Attribution) and the final printed
text. He noted that, before printing, key phrases had been deleted from the
draft that had earlier been approved by its several
scientist-authors.
1996 It was clear this year that internal skepticism
among the IPCC-linked scientists over what would turn out to be the greatest
source of conflict, the role of paleoclimatology (which seeks to reconstruct
past climate by examining records such as ice cores and tree rings).
Doubt existed over dendrochronology, the use of tree rings as a way to
measure and document climate history.The
tree ring data did not agree with other temperature data, did not support
elimination of (MWP) Medieval Warm Period or the “Hockey Stick” graphs nor
predetermined political objectives of ‘Man-made Global Warming’, it's
noteworthy that ice core data didn't agree with land data as determined by
OIS-3 studies.. 1996 March 7; Stephan Shiyatov of the Laboratory of
Dendrochronology, Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ekaterinburg, Russia
wrote Keith Briffa at (CRU) Climate Research Unit complaining about funding
problems for tree-ring research.It
was a known fact that only about 1 out of 10 proposals for scientific research
get funding.1996 May 14; Enron
Lobbied Clinton To Act On FERC Order 888 And "Allow Wholesale Open Access
To The Nation's Electricity Transmission Grid." "Gas companies,
trade groups and utilities are barraging the White House with support for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Order 888, telling President
Clinton that the administration should not delay implementation because of
unfounded environmental concerns. . . . Order 888 will allow wholesale open
access to the nation's electricity transmission grid. Also writing to Clinton
was a group of 26 trade groups and energy companies that urged that EPA not
turn the rule over to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for review.
The group includes . . . Enron Corp. . . With CO2 restrictions the nation must
turn to electricity. However more damming "Also, it is important
for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we
gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during
one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform
us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your
administration for these money." Keith Briffa and therefore CRU
considered entering into an agreement of tax fraud. 1996 June 11: To: Benjamin D. Santer, Livermore "I learned
about the Chapter 8 text changes (which you made between its acceptance and
its printing) from material mailed out by the Global Climate Coalition on May
17. Included there were the Oct 9, 1995 draft and the printed version of
Chap 8, as well as a covering memo from Don Rheem "Revisions to
Pre-approved IPCC
1996 Professor Seitz's 1996 Wall Street Journal article:
"This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely
because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed,
modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists
have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it
appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing
scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of
the American scientific community, including service as president of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never
witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the
events that led to this IPCC report."
1996 August; Tom Wigley director of (CRU) Climate
Research Unit who in 2009 works for the (NCAR)
National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado believes
ice cores were unreliable because they correlate very poorly with (land)
temperature. He said the link
between ice core and temperature variation was “close to zero” and tree
rings were less than 50% reliable (to other evidences?)
The main external candidate is solar, and more work is required to
improve the ‘paleo’ solar forcing record.
The OIS-3 studies using ice cores suggested climate and temperatures on
continental lands are poorly known, due to the discontinuous nature of
sedimentation changes on land. This scientific nonsense must stop if a
political objective is to be met. 1996 September 19; From: Gary Funkhouser To: Keith Briffa 1996 August 9: Dr.
John L. Daly (1943-2004) uncovered an eleven-year signal
in the temperature data set from the island of Tasmania. He found this
signal by using a mathematical signal analysis formula known as a Fourier
Transform. It is clear from the tone of his e-mail that he knows this is not
welcome news, but he goes on to state the following concerning the
temperature data set compiled by the Jones/Mann Gang:
(I tried the same run [Fourier
Transform] on the CRU global temperature set. Even though CRU must be
highly smoothed by the time all the averages are worked out, the 11-year
pulse is still there, albeit about half the size of Sydneys)
1996 September 24-26 ; London; The
Task Group on Scenarios for Climate and Impact Assessment (TGCIA) was
established following a recommendation made at the IPCC Workshop on Regional
Climate Change Projections for Impact Assessment 1996 October; Keith Briffa at (CRU) Climate Research Unit
along with others, believed that tree-ring science could be the magic bullet
that would prove what the IPCC scientists wanted, evidence “beyond a
reasonable doubt” of a “ discernible human influence on global climate”.
He told the press that there were signs that recent warming in Siberian
Russia was setting records, “the trend seems to be accelerating”.
Stephen Shiyatov says it is warmer this spring on the Yamal Peninsula
than ever before, it is a major warming, like nothing seen there for thousands
of years. Is he referring to weather or climate? Look up the
definitions if you don't know the difference. 1996 October 13: From:
Fred Pearce To: Keith Briffa 1996 October 21: Dr. Benjamin
D. Santer (convening lead author, Chapter 8 of the IPCC report "Climate
Change 1995″) 1996 November 22: From: gjjenkins To: p.jones, deparker 1997 United Nations: In 2005, during investigations into the
U.N.'s , Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence
procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Pau l
Volcher, b-1927 showed that in 1997, while working for UN Secretary-General
(1997-2007) Kofi Annan, Maurice F. Strong was the personal envoy to Kofi Annan
and had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to "Mr. Maurice F.
Strong," issued by a Jordanian bank. It
was reported that the check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean
businessman, Tongsun Park alias Pak Dong-seon, b-1935 who in 2006 was
convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to
rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein.
He was released from prison September 2008.
Kojo Annan son of Kofi Annan received payment from a Swiss
Company but was not convicted. During
the inquiry, Maurice F. Strong b-1929, stepped
down from his U.N. post, stating that he would "sideline himself until
the cloud was removed". Maurice
F. Strong then moved to Beijing, China. Maurice
F. Strong b-1929 is known as an advocate of 'Global Warming', 'Greenhouse
Effect' as caused by mankind, as well as World Government. see 1972 1997 June 21: Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London,
writes: 1997 July: Ken Lay of ENRON was among a select group who
met with Clinton/Gore to establish the Administration Case for policy action
on man-made Global Warming. 1997 August: It is suggested
in Congressional review that Al Gore had discussed with the ENRON CEO of using Cap &
Trade Derivatives to manage Global Warming. When asked to confirm, or
deny, he stammered and finally said "I don't know". However in
August of 1997 in a White house meeting Ken Lay of ENRON urged President
Clinton and Vice President Al Gore to back a 'Market Based' approach to Global
Warming. Ken Law CEO of Enron later bragged that Al Gore had solicited
his views on Global Warming in advance of a climate treaty. In an
internal letter to ENRON employees Lay said that Mr. Clinton had agreed to a
market-based solution, such as emissions trading, was the answer to reducing
CO2 in the atmosphere. It is noteworthy that ENRON received over
$4 billion in Federal Assistance during the Clinton/Gore Administration.
This is the beginning of a political solution driving climate science. 1997 August WASHINGTON,
DC -- In August 1997, a few months before the Kyoto Conference on Climate
Change, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) helped launch a massive
advertising campaign designed to prevent the United States from
endorsing any meaningful agreement to reduce global carbon emissions. This
group included in its ranks some of the world's most powerful corporations and
trade associations involved with fossil fuels. The campaign effectively
undermined public support of U.S. efforts to lead the international effort to
stabilize climate. While the public image of the GCC was that of a
unified group, there was dissent. John Browne, Chairman of British Petroleum,
on May 19, 1997, announced that "the time to consider the policy
dimensions of policy change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and
climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be
discounted and is 1997 September
Prof. Martin Parry (UK) was asked to assemble and chair the IPCC Group,
See November 25, 1997 below 1997 October
7: From: Angela.LIBERATORE To: "m.hulme"(Greenpeace),
"Martin.OConnor" , alcamo , jaeger , dvm , eepriia , hourcade <hourcade,
"t.jackson" , jaeger , vertic , "pier.vellinga" ,
pweingart ,, fy1 1997 October 9: From: Joseph Alcamo To: m.hulme (Greenpeace),
Rob.Swartl 1997 November; Keith
Briffa at (CRU) Climate Research Unit is struggling with sampling issues,
missing Russian data, other problems and results. 1997 November 3; Keith
Briffa at (CRU) Climate Research Unit writes Tom Wigley director of (CRU)
Climate Research Unit “Equally important though is the leveling off of
carbon uptake in the later 20th century”.
The density of the tree rings also declines,
a finding inconsistent with carbon-induced warming.
“I have been agonizing for months that these results are not some
statistical artifact of the analysis method, but cannot see how”.
The political agenda and research dollars would begin to shift the tide. 1997 November 7: "It appears that we have a
very good case for suggesting that the El Ninos are going to become more
frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or a
decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool
water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that
will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18
months, lasts 18 years,” according to Dr. Russ Schnell, a scientist doing
atmospheric research at Mauna Loa Observatory. – BBC, Nov. 7, 1997 1997 November 25: From:
Tom Wigley To: jan.goudriaan, grassl_h, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger ,
oriordan, uctpa84, john, mparry, pier.vellinga 1998 ENRON continued to pressure Clinton/Gore
Administration to restructure legislation relating to Global Warming.
ENRON according to internal records, sought laws that would favor Enron's
natural gas inventory and reduce consumption of coal. Thus began the
tying of imported oil to a Global Solution of Global Warming. 1998 A petition circulated
to scientists urging lawmakers to reject the Kyoto Protocol has been signed by
over 17,000 individuals including over 2,000 physicists, geophysicists,
climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists.
An additional 4,400, according to the petition’s sponsors, are qualified to
assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life
and most of the remaining signers have technical training suitable to
understanding climate change issues. 1998 Mike Hulme a top official of (CPU) Climate Research
Unit and member of (Greenpeace) was a key player in the strange business of constructing economic,
scientific and climate forecasting models for the next 100 years and beyond.
They appear to have been dragged into the economic prediction game by
the (IIASA) International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria,
in turn assigned by the (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
United Nations Agency to construct economic outlooks for growth and carbon
emissions. This exercise
ultimately led to the production of one of the IPCC’s long-term climate
gimmicks, a range of scenarios or story lines that produced different levels
of greenhouse gas emissions by year 2100. I Googled Mike Hulme and can
find no economics degree or experience? 1998 March; Mike Hulme a top official of (CPU) Climate
Research Unit and (Greenpeace) advocate received a draft version of these 100-year forecast scenarios.
Four scenarios were developed; A1 (Golden Age), B1 (Sustainable
Development), A2, and B2. The
exercise was to set-up a campaign to undermine free markets, globalization and
free trade. 1998 June: The (CRU) Climate Research Unit paleo research was crushed
and they were forced to seek Michael E. Mann a fellow paleoclimatologist
(remember this is one familar with ice core and tree ring data).
Actual temperature records only exist from the late 1800's, forcing scientists
to use uncertain indirect methods, such as ice core samples, tree-ring
measurements, rock formations etc to determine temperatures from our past
history. Mr. Michael E. Mann with Malcolm Hughs and Ray Bradley had recently
completed a Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the
past six centuries based on the infamous "hockey stick"
graphic out of (CRU) Climate Research Unit. Mr Keith Briffa submitted a
paper to Science magazine, critiquing elements of the :hockey Stick" and
presented his own 2,000-year tree-ring-based paleo record in early spring
before he approached Mr. Michael E. Mann. 1998 June3: Michael
E. Mann adjunct assistant professor, dept of geosciences, Morrill Science Center,
University of Massachusetts wrote
Phil Jones climatologist and director of East Anglia’s CRU centre. 1998 July: David Schimel a climate scientist at the U.S.
(NCAR) National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote Tom Wigley director of
(CRU) Climate Research Unit “ Getting away from single number answers is
very laudable scientifically, but it presents policymakers (for whom the whole
IPCC exercise is undertaken) with a problem”.
Mike Hulme a top official of (CPU) Climate Research Unit and (Greenpeace)
advocate was a
contributing author for the IPCC’s 2001 Synthesis Report, including various
100-year scenarios. It concluded
that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere could rise to 1,250% above the
pre-industrial year of 1750 under the Free Market (A1) scenario, with
temperatures rising as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius.
Free markets, global free trade, innovation clearly ruins everything.
We must keep in mind the IPCC objective is to find the hand of man in global
warming, they are not interested in real science. 1998 July 13: Tom: Tom Wigley To: Sir John Houghton,
Patricia WAGNER, Hugh Pitcher, Robert Watson Cc: Jae Edmonds , Mike Hulme (Greenpeace)
advocate,
Atul Jain, Fortunat Joos, Richard Richels, Dave Schimel, ssmith 1998 September 16: From: gjjenkins To: m.hulme 1998 October 1: From: "Jonathan T. Overpeck"
To: Phil Jones 1998 October 9: From: Rashit Hantemirov To: Keith
Briffa 1998 December 2: From: Bob Keeland To: ITRDBFOR.
ARIZONA
1999 The (OISM) Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
circulated an OISM petition commonly called the Oregon Petition that reads as
follows:
1999 Tom Wigley director of (CRU) Climate Research Unit
wrote Mike Hulme a top official of (CPU) Climate Research Unit telling him
that the “energy-economic models need to be revised” because they fail to
take into account actual emissions between 1990 and 1999 1999 April: Mr. Keith Biffa at (CRU) Climate Research
Unit, proposed his own 2,000-year record as an alternative to Mr. Michael E. Mann's University of Massachusetts "hockey Stick", using other data,
including collections from Sweden and Yamil, in Siberia. The paper
raised serious issues that cast doubt on Michael E. Mann's version of climate history.
Michael E. Mann suggested the widely accepted (MWP) Medieval Warm Period, and subsequent
(LIC) Little Ice Age never happened. Mr. Michael E. Mann of (UofM)
blew up and wrote Mr. Keith Biffa at (CRU) saying his work is "very
misleading" and "a bit unfair" in the way he presents Michael
E. Mann's
perspective. Mr. Michael E. Mann said another section in Biffa's paper was
"incorrect" and that it misrepresented the level of uncertainly in Michael
E. Mann's work. "Our uncertainties are based both on 20th century
calibration and independent confirmation from 19th century data. PLEASE
MAKE SURE this is clear." "Mr. Michael E. Mann asks Mr. Keith Briffa
to remove parts
of his 2,000-year graph." It is noteworthy
that IPCC had previously accepted the long held proof that (MWP) Medieval Warm Period, and subsequent
(LIC) Little Ice Age was accepted by main stream scientists. 1999 Mr. Michael E. Mann's (U of M) University of
Massachusetts tells Mr. Keith Biffa at (CRU) Climate Research Unit to
"correct" his definitions regarding "global temperature and
non-temperature proxies." Mr. Michael E. Mann (U of M) prefers using the
word "global climate proxies", thus giving the impression that
proxies from tree rings and other sources and actual temperatures are one and
the same foot for (IPCC) United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
purposes. What Michael E. Mann appears to be talking about here is the use of what
Phil Jones the head of (CRU) Climate Research Unit would later call Mr. Michael
E. Mann's
"trick" and how he was able to "hide the decline" in 20
century temperatures seen in Keith Briffa's tree-ring research. 1999 April 14: From: Michael E. Mann To: Keith Briffa, Michael
E. Mann, mhughes, rbradley, t.osborn 1999 April 19; Raymond Bradely at (UofM) University of Massachusetts wrote
to Science editor Julia Uppenbrink, saying “I would like to disassociate
myself from Mike Mann’s view” regarding the climate warming article.
Mr. Michael E. Mann of (U of M) had interfered with the peer-review process
of Keith Briffa’s article at Science magazine.
Mr. Raymond Bradley sends a blind copy of this email to Mr. Keith
Briffa of (CRU) Climate Research Unit of University
of East Angila in England. Keep in mind that Mr. Michael E. Mann with Malcolm Hughs and Ray Bradley
created the "hockey Stick Chart". 1999 May 4: From: Trevor Davies To: mick kelly a Green Peace
supporter, j.palutikof, Keith Briffa,
m.hulme,p.jones 1999 May 6; Phil Jones head of (CRU) Climate Research Unit of
University of East Angila writes a stinging letter to Mr. Michael E.
Mann of (U of M) “You seem quite pissed
off with us all at CRU” “I am
somewhat at a loss to understand why”. “We
all have disagreements but we have never resorted to slanging one another off
in a journal .. or in reviewing papers of proposals. There
are two things I’m going to say though:
1999 May 7: From: James Hansen To: D Parker 1999 May 14; Mr. Raymond Bradley of University of
Massachusetts and co-creator of the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph, sends a private
response to Mr. Keith Briffa of (CRO) Climate Research Unit: “Excuse me
while I puke…Ray.” This is in
response to Michael E. Mann of (U
of M)
mildly groveling but self-serving and ultimately not-too-apologetic letter, to
Keith Briffa of (CRU). We have to remember Michael E. Mann is trying to
forcing Keith Briffa a dendroclimatologist out of the picture. 1999 May 17 : From: Dave Schimel To: Shrikant
Jagtap 1999 May 19: Tom
Wigley writes to Mike Hulme and Mike MacCracken, regarding a chain of emails
discussing climate models: 1999 June 5: Fred Pearce, who reported that Syed
Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi wrote that "all the
glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their
present rate of decline." MELTING Himalayan glaciers are
threatening to unleash a torrent of floods into mountain valleys, and
ultimately dry up rivers across South Asia. A new study, due to be presented
in July to the International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI), predicts that
most of the glaciers in the region will vanish within 40 years as a result of
global warming. "All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are
retreating," says Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi,
the chief author of the ICSI report. A typical example is the Gangorti glacier
at the head of the River Ganges, which is retreating at a rate of 30 metres
per year. Hasnain's four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the
central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of
decline. Glaciers cover around 17 per cent of the Himalayas and contain
thousands of cubic kilometres of water. Taken together with those on the
neighbouring Tibetan plateau, they represent the largest body of ice on the
planet outside the polar regions. Furthermore, their meltwater makes up
two-thirds of the flow of great South Asian rivers such as the Ganges, on
which hundreds of millions of people depend. This alleged study was
bogus, never published or peer reviewed but IPCC accepted it as gospel in 2007
without even checking it out, not a phone call.
1999 July 16: From: Keith Briffa To: "Edward R.
Cook" 1999 July 26: "Scientists are warning that
some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global
warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which
could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of
people." -- The Birmingham Post in England, July 26, 1999
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 To: rbradley From: Tom Pedersen Cc Michael E.
Mann, pedersen, If 'Greenhouse Gas' proves to be an 'invalid assumption'
then the belief that Global Warming is man made is in error. 1999 September 22,; The key conspirators were Michael
E. Mann's (U of M) University of Massachusetts, Keith Biffa at (CRU) Climate
Research Unit, Folland and Thomas R. Karl director of (NOAA) National Oceanic
and Atmosphere Administration, who wanted to avoid giving “fodder to the
skeptics”. 1999 September 22; Keith
Briffa of (CRU) again confronted Michael E. Mann of (U of M) in a long email that
included the comment, “I believe that the recent warmth was probably
matched about 1000 years ago.” Treasonous words for Michael E. Mann’s hockey
stick paper that claimed no (MWP) Medieval Warm Period existed. Michael E.
Mann appeared to
back off. He wrote, “Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith
Briffa and Phil Jones both of
(CRU) have both raised some very good points.” In reality he puts Keith
Briffa down again. “SO(sic) I think we’re in the position to
say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly, than Keith Briffa 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 cynical comment from
Michael E. Mann says, “And I certainly don’t want to abuse my lead
authorship by advocating my own work.” It’s a classic example of Michael
E. Mann’s dishonesty, because he abused it in the IPCC 2001 Science Report and
Summary for Policy Makers. Over
the next ten years, the emails became a zone of internal conflict and external
battles to suppress critism, riducle critics and resist all interference with
official science story they had assembled;
The late 20th century was the warmest in history, and the next 100
years could be a climate nightmare. This
they all knew was a falsehood of the worst kind.
The Michael E. Mann technique of aggressive intervention in the peer-review
process over Mr. Keith Briffa’s work set the tune for what would become a major
strategy, as all the scientists within the IPCC loop waged war on any
scientist and papers that contravened or questioned the official view.
We must keep in mind the Presidential Administration supported man made Global
Warming before and real science was applied to the question. 1999 September 22: Keith
Briffa of (CRU) writes “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.” Keep in mind Keith Briffa is into paleoclimatology at
(CRU) Climate Research Unit in University of East Anglia, UK the center of the
hornets nest. 1999
September 22: From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa
, "Folland, Chris" , 'Phil Jones' This is the most important decision of IPCC, who have
already determined the Global Warming is caused by CO2 and is man made in the
20th century. Science can't have a MWE (Medieval Warming Event) that is
warmer or even the same. IPCC doesn't want science to prove
this event or period in history.
The second significant realization is that Michael E. Mann
the creator of the infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph' has a super ego that
does not allow accepting criticism or other scientist data or models.
This is very clear in the emails. 1999
September 23: From: Keith Briffa To: "Michael E. Mann"
, "Folland, Chris" , 'Phil
Jones' 1999 October 3: From: "Mike Hulme" To: <t.d.davies,
bentham, p.jones, j.palutikof, p.liss, r.k.turner, j.darch, a.watkinson,
k.brown, parryml As I read these term of references, it becomes very clear
they are Political and Religious not scientific in nature. The results
are inevitable; Climate science must proclaim their infallibility - the science
is complete, no further debate. Bottom line turn science into a political religion. 1999 October 5: From: Tim Osborn To: Michael E. Mann, imacadam 1999
October 8: From: Wolfgang Cramer To: Mike Hulme 1999
November 19: From: Tom Wigley To: Mike Hulme 1999 November 16; Phil
Jones writes to colleagues; “I’ve
just completed Mike’s Hulme a top official of (CPU) Climate Research Unit )
Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
(ie from 1981 onwards) and [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s Briffa of (CRU)
Climate Research Unit) to hide the
decline.” This was
concerning a diagram for a (WMO) World Meteorological Organization. Now
remember previous use of the words trick and tricky in the
emails but used in connection with 'to hide the decline' there can be
no doubt of its meaning as (MWP) Medivial Warming Period followed by (LIC)
Little Ice Age which was doctored by both data and programs that were also was
used in the infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph'. 1999 November 16: Phil
Jones and other tainted climate scientists can claim that the emails of
Climate-Gate are misunderstood or taken out of context but the actual modeling
programs contain Mike’s ‘Nature Trick’ “To Hid The Decline’ which
reads the program “uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually plot
past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the
real temperatures” This program
statement appears in two places (routines). The real temperatures are
what the scientist believe 'should be' rather than what is 'scientifically
proven'. BELOW IS THE ACTUAL FULL EMAIL COPIED FROM THE LEAKED
EMAIL FILE. 2000 February 24: From: John Shepherd To: Mike
Hulme 2000 March 3: From: Phil Jones To: Shaopeng
Huang.,hpollack One think I have noticed is climate scientist mix climate
and weather when it suits their arguments. 2000 May 24: From: John Shepherd To: t.d.davies 2000 July 5: From: "Mick Kelly" who works
for CRU but is also a Greenpeacer To: m.hulme
2000 July 10: From: "Raymond S. Bradley"
To: Frank Oldfield Its noteworthy that in times of Global Warming mankind
thrived whereas in times of Global Cooling mankind suffered. It is
interesting that increased C02 promotes growth and is the result of Global
Warming not the cause. 2000 August 23: From: Stephen H Schneider To: tkarl
2000 September 11: Mick Kelly of
CRU and a Green Peace advocate wrote: " Mick
Kelly and Aeree Kim (CRU, ENV) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell
International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to
discuss access to Shell information as part of Aeree’s PhD study (our
initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project
placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for the
Tyndall Centre (TC). What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative
discussion with the following points emerging. 2000 September 12: From:
GIORGI FILIPPO (head of the physics of weather and climate section of the
Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy) To: Chapter 10 LAs (other Lead
Authors)- "I myself think
that material for a document as important as the (IPCC) Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report cannot be drawn from
last-minute barely quality-checked and un-peer-reviewed material (people have
barely looked at the Max Planck Institute run that was completed last
Friday!)" 2000 September 14: between:
"Whetton, Peter" and: 'Hans von Storch' , Congbin Fu , GIORGI
FILIPPO , Bruce Hewitson , Mike Hulme , Jens Christensen , Linda
Mearns , Richard Jones , "Whetton, Peter" 2000 September 22: From: malcolam hughes To: tom
crowley 2000 October 4: From: John Daly To: Chick
Keller 2000 October 24: From: Phil Jones To: Brendaw
Morris 2001 John Christy, a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report,
speaks of his former co-lead author deliberatly trying to sensationalize the
report. 2001 The Synthesis Report looked authoritative in its
carbon and temperature outlooks. But
one of the “lead authors” Kevin Ternberth, head of the Climate Analysis
Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado in October
14, 2009 wrote Tom Wigley director of (CRU) Climate Research Unit “the fact
is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t”. The
CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
should be even more warming; but the data is surly wrong.
Our observing system is inadequate”.
In other words, one of the lead authors of the 100-year climate
forecasting exercise says there’s
something wrong with the models or the data.
This climate and economic models remain problematic since 1996.
Equally uncertain were the attempts to reconstruct paleclimate records
going back 1,000 years. 2001
The
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on climate change found no systematic
changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events in areas
where enough data are available for analysis. Madhav Knandekar,
climatologic who studies weather patterns in Canada's Prairie Provinces for
Alberta Environment, found that the evidence just doesn't back up the
'Panic-mongering'. This is true whether its rain, snow, drought, flood,
extreme heat, extreme cold, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail storms, high winds,
blizzards or ice storms. 2001 2001 Some 3 billion metric tons
of dust are lofted into the earth’s atmosphere each year and circumnavigate
the earth in a matter of weeks. The dust climbs as high as 15,000 feet
and contains mercury, bacteria, viruses, soot, acids, radioactive isotopes and
pesticides from Asia and Africa to North America. The effect on global
climate, weather and human health is little understood. Even swarms of
grasshoppers have survived the trans-Atlantic trip in African dust clouds.
World wide dust storms have been increasing. 2001
February 10: From: "John L. Daly" To: Chick
Keller 2001
February 26: 2001 February 27 : From: Phil Jones To: Michael E.
Mann
2001
March 1: From: "Thomas L. Delworth" To: "Michael
E. Mann" 2001
April 5: From: "Michael E. Mann" To: T.Osborn 2001 May 2: Michael E. Mann criticizes Ed Cook’s work with colleague Jan Esper—not for
poor methods or invalid conclusions, but rather because it was being used
publicly, before being able to be blocked through the peer review process.
Firstly, he applies the "peer group pressure" argument: 2001 May 17: Ed Cook makes valid statistical and mathematical
criticisms of the error estimation methods being used by Michael E. Mann and
colleagues:
Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge, thanking them for their
experience and using
that
knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers (these
religious clerics) of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule,
threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods
that they—the power-brokers, the religious leaders—have used. Not to
be confused with the “skeptics” “contrarians” “denialists”
which they dismiss out of hand.
This question touches on something of a dark secret within science—one
which most
scientists,
through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most
disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by
fashions, biases, and dogma.
The career of any professional scientist lives or dies on their success in
achieving publication
of their papers in “peer-reviewed” journals. This is the publish or perish rule of science.
First, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality
for a while, but
eventually
the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their
work—
the
money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to
question the relevance
Second, scientists who are capable and worthy, but unfairly “locked
out” of a given
No surprise that the internet has replaced the peer review process.
Historical climatology is the study
of climate related to human history and thus focuses only on the last few
thousand years.
Paleoclimatology seeks to reconstruct past climate by examining records
such as ice cores, tree rings (dendroclimatology), archaeological layers,
terrestrial continuous and well dated palaeological sequences. sea surface
temperature, ocean currents, sun spot activity, cloud cover, El Nino -
Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Madden-Julien Oscillation (MJO), Northern
Atlantis Oscillation (NAO), Nothern Annualar Mode (NAM), Arctic Oscillation
(AO), Northern Pacific (NP), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), holes in the ozone cover, jet stream
Oscillations, Atmospheric composition of gasses, particle
contamination. Extensive use of models in an attempt to understand
past, present and future climate. The assumptions used in these models
are the most significant components. The most import results are
'anonymous results'.
The most learned and honest scientists will admit that science can't predict
what will happen to climate in 100 years, or even in the next 10 years.
They admit decade variability escapes our understanding.
Climatology requirements:
A masters degree in Geology, Climatology, Meteorology, Physics, Environmental
Science or other closely related disciplines.
Completion of mathematics through ordinary differental equations
Demonstrated knowledge of at least one higher-level computer programming
language (keep this in mind when programs were altered)
Letters of recommendation from at least three former professors or
supervisors
It is interesting that its an attempt to reconstruct the past but a historian,
a generalist is not included nor is an ethics professional.
IPCC has finally admitted to a major dogma error (well
almost); January 20, 2010
remember the internet has been archived and you can still find it at;
http://www.archive.org/index.php
We should think twice before we tamper with things we don't understand.
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
1972: (CRU) Climate Research Unit
in the East Anglia University is started this year as the first research
center to study climate change. This institute will go down in history
as a corrupt Unit not dedicated to the principles of science.
'Global Warming' is a reality, caused by mankind and a 'Global Doomsday' is a
possibility.
People will have to give up their 'Human Rights' for a 'New World Order' of
'Global Government'
Population limits must be controlled by issuing licenses for children, he
however back peddled on this issue.
He was groomed by David Rockefeller, but more importantly by;
Roger Randell Dougan Revelle (1907-1991) who instilled in him the idea that
'CO2' caused 'Global Warming', 'the Greenhouse effect' and was man made.
He also preached, we need to limit population growth. Al Gore also
claims to have been influenced by Revelle. There was no science to
support these scientific beliefs
Mead wanted the atmospheric scientists to do: "What we need
to invent—as responsible scientists—are ways in which farsightedness can
become a habit of the citizenry of the diverse peoples of this planet. This,
of course, poses a set of technical problems for social scientists, but they
are helpless without a highly articulate and responsible expression of
position on the part of natural scientists. Only if natural scientists can
develop ways of making their statements on the present state of danger
credible to each other can we hope to make them credible (and understandable)
to social scientists, politicians, and the citizenry. ...I have asked a
group of atmospheric specialists to meet here to consider how the very real
threats to humankind and life on this planet can be stated with credibility
and persuasiveness before the present society of nations begins to enact laws
of the air, or plan for “international environmental impact statements.”
Mead and her co-organizer William W. Kellogg (a climate scientist from RAND
and later NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research), edited a report
on the proceedings of the conference into a little book published a year
later. (The Mead-Kellogg team also came up, in 1976, with the idea that
carbon dioxide emissions should be controlled “by assigning polluting rights
to each nation” (an early version of the cap-and-trade program
of Al Gore.)
Others who attended the 1975 conference were:
Paul Ehrlich who wrote that the USA population should be cut by 50%, he
wrote the book "The Population Bomb. He also advocated sterilants
be added to water supplies or staple food to reduce the population growth in
America. This is worse than eugenics philosophy of the Adof Hitler.
Dr. James Lovelock is best known as the inventor (in the 1970s) of the
Gaia thesis, which views the Earth as a whole as a living biological being.
Lovelock’s worry about global warming has led him to make dire predictions
about what will happen: “Before this century is over, billions of us will
die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic
where the climate remains tolerable,”
William W. Kellogg believed “The important point to bear in mind is that
mankind surely has already affected the climate of vast regions, and quite
possibly of the entire earth, and that its ever escalating population and
demand for energy and food will produce larger changes in the years ahead.”
Few Green peace, or eco-terrorists appreciate that their environmental
movements were based on the eugenics
movement that Adolf Hitler used in WWII. Deutscher Grub or the Nazi
Salute Sieg Heil. Now you know!
This is a poor assumption, the Oceans are the Working Fluid and the sun is the
driver.
"Models are deficient because they do not include the complex
interactions...
They do not simulate the behavior of clouds...
They treat changing snow cover and sea ice...inadequately."
"The term greenhouse effect has been criticized because a greenhouse is a
poor analogy" Models are inadequate and the analogy is inadequate
so why use it?
Assumptions "Mankind's Leverage Points of Climate;
Land use
Slash and burn technology [It should be noted that slash and burn technology
was been used for centuries]
CO2 by burning fossil fuels
Aerosols
etc." Keep in mind the
models are inadequate and the analogy is inadequate
"Burning of fossil fuels 'appears' to be the largest, single factor for
changing the entire global climate system" Others would suggest
atmospheric water, followed by ocean currents, then sun flaring. CO2 is
so far down the list that it is not worth mentioning.
"CO2 take from 1,000 to 1,500 years for added amounts already in the atmosphere
to decay to one-third: Others suggest it only takes 4-5 years.
"Since climate change is being caused by mankind" Amazing an
assumption becomes a fact? Remember models are inadequate.
"In the polar regions one would expect a warming some 3-5 times greater
than global average" Its a travesty that Antarctic is growing
colder due to the ozone hole and the Arctic ice sheet remains stable. I
guess this prompted the claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by
2035.
"4,000 to 8.000" years ago the world was several degrees warmer than
now." I guess he didn't tell the Climate-Gate Gang?
"Our best estimate is that by the end of this century (2000) the earth
average surface temperature will be warmer than at any time in the past
thousand years or more and still rising" Now you know why the need
to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period and to hide the decline. We are likely in a
Global cooling cycle since 1999 (1994 if you consider statistical
significance) and is expected to continue into 2019 or even 2029.
"The real question. however, is how much warming it would take to
eliminate the Arctic ice pack?" OIS-3 conclusions; variations in
orbit, CO2, and ice-sheet size are of little significance in explaining the
observed climate variability.
This is in preparation for the 1979 (WMO) World Meteorological Organization of the
United Nations, in Geneva.
It's very clear we have a solution for a problem before it is identified.
Published by the Club of Rome in a think tank. Concluded;
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that
pollution, the threat of 'Global Warming', water shortages, famine and the like
would fit the bill.. All these dangers are caused by Human Intervention"
It is noteworthy that Al Gore claims he has been involved from this date in
Global Warming. I suspect he was not involved until 1997 when Ken Lay of ENRON
showed him how to make money from Global Warming. However he said he was
influenced in his thinking by
Maurice F. Strong. Maurice F. Strong however said he doesn't
remember Al Gore.
1983 Maurice
F. Strong b-1929 an advocate of 'Global Warming' and 'Greenhouse Effect'
caused by mankind is a commissioner of World on Environment and Development sponsored
by the United Nation, keep on mind he also advocates World Government.
1988 March 10: From: Anne JOHNSON
To: Joseph Alcamo and dear world:
Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
"The scenarios will be placed on the World Wide Web, subject to public
scrutiny, and suggestions for relevant modification of the scenarios will be
sought,
Scenarios are pertinent, plausible, alternative futures. Their
pertinence, in this case, is derived from the need for climate change modelers
to have a basis for assessing the implications of future possible paths for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). Their plausibility is tested by
peer review, in an open process, which includes their publication on the World
Wide Web."
This is not to prove or disprove the Greenhouse Gas hypotheses of human
created.
"The scenarios should not be construed as being desirable or undesirable
in their own right and have been built as descriptions of possible, rather
than preferred, developments. Scenarios are built to clarify ignorance
rather than present knowledge -- the one thing we can be sure of is that the
future will be very different from any of those we describe!"
Developing scenarios for a period of one hundred years is a relatively new
field. Within that period we might expect two major technological
discontinuities, a major shift in societal values and a change in the balance
of geopolitical power. A particular difficulty is that people are not
trained to think in these time-spans, are educated in narrow disciplines and
our ability to model large-systems, at the global level, is still in its
infancy. Additionally, most databases do not go back much further than
50 years and many less than that. How best to integrate demography,
politico-economic, societal and technological knowledge with our understanding
of ecological systems? Scenarios can be used as an integration tool,
allowing an equal role for intuition, analysis and synthesis.
"Our approach has been to develop a set of four "scenario
families". The storylines of each of these scenario families
describes a demographic, politico-economic, societal and technological
future. Within each family one or more scenarios explore global energy
industry and other developments and their implications for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and other pollutants. These are a starting point for climate
impact modelling."
The major assumption is that Greenhouse Gas Emissions by man causes Global
Warming.
"The scenarios we have built explore two main questions for the 21st
century, neither of which we know the answer to:
- Can adequate governance -- institutions and agreements -- be put in place to
manage (perceived) global problems?
- Will society's values focus more on enhancing material wealth or be more
broadly balanced, incorporating environmental health and social
well-being." Why must the answer be binary, why not both?
"The way we answer these questions leads to four families of scenarios:
- Golden Economic Age (A1): a century of expanded economic prosperity with the
emergence of global governance
- Sustainable Development (B1): in which global agreements and institutions,
underpinned by a value shift, encourages the integration of ecological and
economic goals
- Divided World (A2): difficulty in resolving global issues leads to a world
of autarkic regions
- Regional Stewardship (B2): in the face of weak global governance there is a
focus on managing regional/local ecological and equity"
The questions are not framed to uncover truth but to support the premise of
World Government which is the hidden agenda.
Golden Economic Age
"This scenario family entitled "Golden Economic Age", describes
rapid and successful economic development. The primary drivers for
economic growth and development "catch up" are the strong human
desire for prosperity, high human capital (education), innovation, technology
diffusion, and free trade." Globalization would be later added to
this scenario. The major assumption is that this scenario is not
sustainable. The question is not how we can make it sustainable.
Sustainable Development
"The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of
environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including major
social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality. While
no explicit climate policy is undertaken, other kinds of initiatives lead to
lower energy use, and clean energy systems, which significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Besides cleaning up air quality, there is
emphasis on improving the availability and quality of water."
The major assumption is that socialism, dictatorship and centralized organization,
planning and control will achieve sustainable development.
If you really want to be scared to death read the full report at leaked email
# 0889554019
"All the remaining long chronology (prehistoric) oak data from Ireland,
England, north and south Germany (including the major Hohenhein holdings (2827
tree series spanning 8239 BC to 841 AD) and the Netherlands (667 series
spanning 6025 BC with gaps to 1721 AD) has now been centralised and screened.
There is a notable fall-off in correlation between the standardised Irish and
English chronologies at AD 775 to 825. It appears that English and Irish
trees were responding in completely opposite manner during this period.
Such findings have important implications for both identifying and
interrogating such episodes throughout the record.
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us
pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that
David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like
Australia , NZ, Canada
,
Antarctica
). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38
source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early
stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
=============================================================================
In 1992, the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global
climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This
year, at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to
take another important step. It is our belief that the nations of the
world should agree to substantive action for controlling the growth of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Our opinion is bolstered by the latest assessment of scientific knowledge
carried out by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC
reported that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human
influence on global climate". They also gave examples of observed climate
change up to now, including:
Global mean surface air temperature has increased by between 0.3 to 0.6
degrees Celsius since the late 19th century, and recent years have been the
warmest since 1860.
Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 centimeters over the past 100
years.
Based on estimates from computer models, the IPCC also maintained that
humanity will have a continuing and cumulative effect on climate in the
future. Future society may find that some climate impacts are positive, as in
the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in some dry regions; and
society may be able to adapt to some impacts, such as by building dikes
against rising sea level. But many, if not most, climate impacts will increase
risks to society and nature, and will be irreversible on the human time scale.
Among the possible changes are further increases in sea level, the
transformation of forest and other ecosystems, modifications of crop yield,
and shifts in the geographic range of pests and pathogens. It is also possible
that infrequent but disastrous events, such as droughts and floods, could
occur more often in some regions. At particular risk are people living on arid
or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas and islands, in water-limited or
flood-prone regions, or in mountainous regions. The risk to nature will be
significant in the many areas where ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to
changing climate, or where they are already under stress from environmental
pollution or other factors.
Because of these risks, we consider it important for nations to set limits on
the increase of global temperature due to human interference with the climate
system. We recommend that European and other industrialized nations use such
long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining short-term
emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example, by the European
Union and the Alliance of Small Island States.
Some may say that action to control emissions should be postponed because of
the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. Our view is
that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require
"precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of
climate change", as stated in the Framework Convention on Climate
Change.
We also acknowledge that economic arguments have been put forward for
postponing the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after
carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find the
arguments against postponement to be more compelling. First, postponing action
could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions
onto future generations. Second, it will lead to a greater accumulation of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and hence make it more difficult to prevent
future climate change when action is finally taken. Third, the latest IPCC
assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of
emissions.
Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other
industrialized countries to agree to control greenhouse emissions as part of a
Kyoto agreement. Some controls can be achieved by reducing fossil fuel use at
little or no net cost through accelerated improvements in the efficiency of
energy systems, the faster introduction of renewable energy sources, and the
reduction of subsidies for fossil fuel use. Moreover, reducing the use of
fossil fuels will also reduce local and regional air pollution, and their
related impacts on human health and ecosystems.
We believe that the European Union (EU) proposal is consistent with long term
climate protection. This proposal would reduce key greenhouse gas emissions by
15% from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I countries) by the year
2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger emission reductions will be
needed in the future, we see the EU, or similar, goal as a positive first step
"to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system" and to lessen risks to society and nature. Such
substantive action is needed now."
EIGHTEEN YEARS LATER WHAT HAS CHANGED?. In fact for the last 11
years we are in global cooling. Read the leaked emails and get
informed.
"The June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on
international agreements to deal with that threat, and the heads of state from
dozens of countries attended. I must state at the outset, that, as a
scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being
popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by
economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty
adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of
the recent National Research Council's report on adapting to global change.
Many aspects of the catastrophic scenario have already been largely discounted
by the scientific community. For example, fears of massive sea-level increases
accompanied many of the early discussions of global warming, but those
estimates have been steadily reduced by orders of magnitude, and now it is
widely agreed that even the potential contribution of warming to sea-level
rise would be swamped by other more important factors."
Climate-related disease risks of the various
health outcomes assessed by WHO will more than double by 2030.
Flooding as a result of coastal storm surges
will affect the lives of up to 200 million people by the 2080s.
Heat related deaths in California could more
than double by 2100.
Hazardous ozone pollution days in the Eastern
U.S. could increase 60 percent by 2050
Patz and
his colleagues say their work demonstrates the moral obligation of
countries with high per-capita emissions, such as the United States and
European nations, to take the lead in reducing the health threats of
global warming.
In addition
to his sharing in the 2007 Nobel Prize, to IPCC and Al Gore, Dr.
Patz received an Aldo Leopold Leadership Fellows Award in 2005, shared the
Zayed International Prize for the Environment in 2006, and earned the
distinction of becoming a UW-Madison Romnes Faculty Fellow in 2009. Who says being a global warming advocate doesn’t pay off?
1995 It is believed Jonathan T. Overpeck a climate
researcher at University of Colorado wrote Dr David Deming b-1954 who has a
Ph.D. in geophysics, National Research Council postdoctoral fellowship at U.S.
Geology and Geophics “We have to
get rid of the Medieval Warming Period”
This period was much warmer than the 20th century.
Jonathin T. Overpeck who is director of the Department of Geosciences
Environmental Studies Laboratory University Arizona (1999-2009?) would later
be an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) lead author.
This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both
human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published
scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. Nothing of the
sort has ever happened. The IPCC has consistently ignored the major natural
influences on climate change and has focused almost entirely on human causes,
especially on GH gases and more especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked
to industrial activities and therefore 'bad' almost by definition.
How then did the IPCC-SAR arrive at "balance of evidence"? It was
the work of a then-relatively-junior scientist, Benjamin D. Santer of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), who has recently re-emerged as
a major actor in ClimateGate. As a Convening Lead Author of a crucial IPCC
chapter, Santer carefully removed any verbiage denying that human influences
might be the major or almost exclusive cause of warming and substituted new
language. There is no evidence that he ever consulted any of his fellow IPCC
authors, nor do we know who instructed him to make these changes and later
approved the text deletions and insertions that fundamentally transformed
IPCC-SAR.
This was a reoccurring problem.
Documents" and an analysis of the changes entitled "The IPCC:
Institutionalized "Scientific Cleansing". The GCC did a
careful
comparison of the two versions of Chap 8; the fact that they are an industry
group cannot and should not be used to invalidate their
work.
I am persuaded that the revisions have altered the tone of Chapter 8 and made
it conform more closely to the IPCC Summary.
Your view, obviously, is quite different; but then again, you would not be
considered as an unbiased party. My recommendation is that the GCC
should mail their analysis to you and your co-authors so that you can
understand their point of view.
I have relied on the GCC's representation that the changes were not in accord
with IPCC procedures. This question was put to you
when you and Wigley spoke here on May 21. Your answers did not
satisfactorily explain whether and when the other lead authors were consulted
or informed of these changes, and whether they approved. I have recently
called both Barnett and Anyamba to get my own answer to this question.
But since this legality is not my concern, I will simply encourage you to
settle the matter directly
with the GCC, the editor of Energy Daily, and anyone else who might be
involved.
In this connection, however, I am somewhat surprised by the paper prepared by
you and Wigley for the May 21 seminar. Figure
3(a) shows only the (positive) 50-year linear trend, but not the zero and
negative trends of figure 10 in your Climate Dynamics
paper. I would judge that the most relevant trend line should be one
starting around 1960 when data coverage increased globally"
This was not a isolated problem with publication of IPCC reports.
"A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists
and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the
scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed
version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC
Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions.
Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after
it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC."
So the Kyoto protocol was based on fictitious science, exaggerated or
fabricated outright for political purposes. The same junior scientist,
Professor Santer who hijacked the Second Assessment Report figures prominently
in Climategate. Many of his emails were disclosed by the East Anglia
whistleblower; among other things, they show Santer resisting all efforts by
independent scientists to obtain information, through Freedom of Information
Act requests, about the statistical manipulations that Santer applies to raw
climate data to "prove" the existence of anthropogenic global
warming.
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
"I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you
said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first
also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the
chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have
to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is."
Gary Funkhouser Lab. of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona. Remember the term 'trick'. His
reluctance to report a "null result" (namely, that the data do not
show anything significant) is extremely disturbing, as it flies in the face of
standard scientific practice, which requires that all results be reported.
1996 August 12: Dr. Wigley,
another member of the Jones/Mann Climate Gang correlating the timeline of the
proxy data was identified as problematic Here, ice cores are more valuable
(CO2, CH4 and volcanic aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is
solar, and more work is required to improve the "paleo" solar
forcing record and to understand how the climate system responds both globally
and regionally to solar forcing.
What is significant about this paragraph is that it identifies the main cause
of climate change as "solar forcing," not carbon dioxide (CO2).
This fact was also kept secret.
Specifically, the TGCIA controlled the dissemination of information on:
• anthropogenic forcing of climate
• future changes in climate
• other environmental and socio-economic factors
Within existing IPCC scenario frameworks, the TGCIA facilitates evaluation and
development of enhanced scenario information by applying insights and
knowledge from the published, peer-reviewed literature. Results of its
activities are shared with the research community as well as with the IPCC and
its working groups. It is funded and controlled by Germany, the
United Kingdom, and the United States.
However Membership includes:
T Carter, Finland, U Cubasch, Germany, X Dai, China, P Desanker, Malawi. M
El-Raey, Egypt, F Giorgi, Italy, M Harrison, WG II TSU, M Lal, India, M
Lautenschlager, Germany, M Manning, WG I TSU, L Mata, Venezuela, L Mearns,
USA, J Mitchell, UK, T Morita, Japan, R
Moss, USA (Acting chair), D Murdiyarso, Indonesia, N Nghia, Vietnam, C Nobre,
Brazil, M Noguer, UK, D Pabon, Colombia, H Pitcher, USA, C Rosenzweig, USA, L
Meyer, WG III TSU, P Whetton, Australia
Subject: new scientist feature
The IPCC's scientific working group, chaired by former UK Meteorological
Office boss Sir John Houghton, in 1966 concluded that "the balance of
evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate".
But it is like the "balance of evidence" suggesting BSE
causes CJD.The judgment is far
from "beyond reasonable doubt". The case remains "not proven".
Tree rings are not the only source of proxy temperature data. Layers of
ice laid down annually in permanent ice sheets, such as those in Greenland and
Antarctica, carry a temperature record in the isotopic composition of the
ice. Corals also have a temperature imprint, and even sediments on
continental shelves can be mined for climate information. The most work,
so far, has been done on ice sheets. American and European researchers
in the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP), for instance, have drilled for 3
kilometres into the ice pack, going back more than 100 000 years.
Besides plotting the course of the last ice age, they have found evidence of
constant climate shifts during the past 10 000 years. Keith Briffa says tree
rings and ice cores "complement each other, focusing best at different
timescales." Tree rings show annual and decade-to-decade
variations very clearly. But they do not go back so far, and are not so
good at spotting change from millenium to millenium. Ring analysis
seems to smooth out long-term trends, probably because trees slowly adapt to
these changes, disguising them." On the other hand, ice-core data
shows up long-term trends very clearly, but is poor at showing single-year
changes. The melting and refreezing of ice in the surface of ice packs
means that the ice from individual years tends to mingle together
The Climate-Gate Gang knew there models were inaccurate at this
time. In 2007 an independent study confirmed that the models could
not be trusted. This news would enrage the Climate-Gate Gang led by Mr.
Phil Jones.
In our view, the alterations to the text were both substantial and
substantive. In one stroke they eliminated clauses that had been discussed
over many months and agreed to by the four lead authors, 30-odd contributors,
and numerous reviewers. Here are three of the clauses that were removed from
Chapter 8 ("Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes"):
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in
greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are
likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural
variability of the climate system are reduced.
A leading article in Nature (June 13), while dismissive of IPCC critics, had
to admit that "phrases that might have been (mis)interpreted as
undermining … [IPCC] conclusions … 'disappeared' in the revision
process"
We note that nowhere does Dr. Seitz attack the scientific integrity of Dr.
Santer. Santer has always taken full responsibility for making the actual
changes, although he has not been forthcoming in revealing who instructed him
to make such revisions and who approved them after they were made. He has,
however, told others privately that he was asked [prevailed upon?] to do so by
IPCC co-chairman John Houghton. Nature (June 13) states that the changes were
made to bring Chapter 8 into conformity with the IPCC Summary for
Policymakers, a political document finalized by governmental delegations in
Madrid in late November 1995. You may not have seen the November 15 letter
from the State Department (quoted in the Aug. 22 issue of Nature), instructing
Dr. Houghton to "prevail upon" chapter authors "to modify their
texts in an appropriate manner following discussion in Madrid."
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Cc: llivingston, djcarson, ckfolland
"Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), "inventing" the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc? I think we should have a
cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall [of
the United Nations Environment Program] and (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write an
article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville Nicholls??
Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change
prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of
the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office (national weather service).
" I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but it’s just meant to save
time in the long run."
1997 Gordon Jacoby, a tree-ring specialist at Columbia
University, writes about another tree-ring scientist, Fritz Sachweingruber.
“He should not represent his data as definitive… his opinions are
influential, but there is a accumulating body of ring-width data that clearly
shows him to be missing important information with his style of sampling”.
Without wishing to comment on the dispute between BP and Greenpeace
(Editorial, 20 August), we would like to remind your readers of the
seriousness of the potential threat caused by our continued use of fossil
fuels. This damage occurs both locally - as evidenced by the deterioration of
air quality in UK cities in the past few weeks - and also globally.
As scientists studying the impacts of climate change, we consider the global
threat from greenhouse gases to be serious and to need
addressing. Adverse effects on human populations are likely to result from
changes in weather patterns, shifts in storm frequencies, rises in sea level
and the spread of certain pests and infectious diseases. A wide variety of
ecosystems throughout the world will be at increasing risk.
We have little idea whether or not we can manage such adverse effects and
therefore the prudent course of action is to limit the cause of the threat.
Major shifts in investment away from fossil fuels will therefore be required
to make the necessary reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere. Large companies like British Petroleum seem to us to be well
placed to take an active part in investing in these changes. There is no doubt
the need for precautionary, preventative action is urgent."
Prof. A.J. McMichael London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine University
of London
Dr. M. Hulme Climatic Research Unit (CRU) University of East Anglia
taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached
that point." BP withdrew from the Global Climate Coalition.
Dupont had already left. The following year, Royal Dutch Shell left.
In 1999, Ford withdrew from the GCC. A company spokesman noted,
"Over the course of time, membership in the Global Climate Coalition has
become something of an impediment for Ford Motor Company to achieving our
environmental objectives." In rapid succession in the early months
of 2000, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, and General Motors announced that
they too were leaving the Coalition. This accelerating exodus reflected
the conflict emerging within GCC ranks between firms that were clinging to the
past and those that were planning for the future."
Subject: Copy of: climate: Japanese proposal
Andrew Kerr wrote "scandalous" Japanese climate change
proposal
The information has been well-leaked. In a talk to the Foreign Correspondents
Club of Japan last Friday I described the proposal as a
"joke". This was well picked up by the written press here. Now more
details have emerged, the proposal is even weaker than first
thought. We are faxing a press release out this afternoon to Japan-based
agencies and press with WWF?s reaction (see below). You might like to join in
the condemnation of what Japan is proposing and ensure that your country
flatly rejects the proposal. Japan?s Special Ambassador, Toshiaki
Tanabe, is on a world tour canvassing for the support of other industrialised
nations. After visiting Washington DC he moved on to Hawaii a few days ago for
an informal conference including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US.
Today's Yomiuri Shimbun gave front-page coverage to Australia?s outrage over
the stringency of the Japanese proposal! Tanabe is moving to
Europe for talks in the next few days. It is vital that European governments
reject the proposal in no uncertain terms and urge Japan to at least support
the EU standpoint. It would also be very useful if progressive business
groups would express
their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if
Kyoto is a flop.
Reply-to: alcamo
"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.
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."
"Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director Center for Environmental Systems
Research University of Kassel, Germany"
It would appear Mike Hulme (Greenpeace) was reluctant.
Tom Wigley however was even more adamant in arguing against a scientist’
statement. “Your approach to
trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people
to endorse your letter is reprehensible” so written by Wigley November 25,
1997. This is a very childish strategy.
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Reply-to: Tom Wigley Cc: Mike Hulme (Greenpeace), t.mitchell
Dear Eleven, The 11 formal sponsors are: *****
Jan Goudriaan Hartmut GrasslKlaus HasselmannJill Jäger
Hans OpschoorTim O'RiordanMartin Parry David Pearce
Hans-Joachim SchellnhuberWolfgang Seiler Pier Vellinga
"I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC
"view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions. "In
contrast to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and
TP3 review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of
more cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make
"convincing cases" for any particular policy option; nor does
it. However, most IPCC readers would draw the conclusion that the
balance of economic evidence favors the emissions trajectories given in the
WRE paper. This is contrary to your statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service.
To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced
scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be
apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when
they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views
by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist
who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any
statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are
asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that
some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a
balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science -- when, in fact, you are
presenting a flawed view that neither accords with IPCC nor with the bulk of
the scientific and economic literature on the subject.
When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements,
they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are
doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in
my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the
statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing."
Tim Mitchell 1997 November 11 wrote: Reference: Statement
of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate
Attached at the end of this email is a Statement, the purpose of which is to
bolster or increase governmental and public support for controls of emissions
of greenhouse gases in European and other industrialised countries in the
negotiations during the Kyoto Climate Conference in December 1997. The
Statement was drafted by a number of prominent European scientists concerned
with the climate issue, 11 of whom are listed after the Statement and who are
acting as formal sponsors of the Statement."
The 11 formal sponsors are: *****
Jan Goudriaan Professor Department of Theoretical Production Ecology of
the Wageninggen University
Hartmut Grassl Director Max Planck Institute Meteorology, Hamburg
Klaus Hasselmann Founding Director Max Planck Institute Meteorology,
Hamburg
Jill Jäger Environment Canada Policy Research, member International
Human Dimension Program
Hans Opschoor Economic of Sustainable Development at Vrije University
of Ansterdam also works for IPCC
Tim O'Riordan Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia
Martin Parry (UK) assembled and chaired the IPCC
David Pearce Economics UCL, London
Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber Director of Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research, Germany
Wolfgang Seiler Director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Atmospheric
Environmental Research in Garmisch-Patenkirchen
Pier Vellinga Chairman of Scientific and Techinacal Advisory Panal of the
Global Environment Facility, Amsterdam
"After endorsements from many hundreds of other European climate-related
scientists are collected (and we hope that you agree to be one of these), the
Statement will be brought to the attention of key decision-makers (e.g. EU
Kyoto negotiaters and Environment Ministers) and other opinion-makers in
Europe (e.g. editorial boards of newspapers) during the week beginning 24th
November. The UK and other European WWF offices have agreed to assist in this
activity, although the preparation of the Statement itself has in no way been
initiated or influenced by WWF or any other body. This is an initiative
taken by us alone and supported by our 11 Statement sponsors.
WHAT WE ASK FROM YOU
We would very much like you to endorse this Statement.
Unfortunately, at this time we can no longer take into account any suggested
modifications. Nevertheless, we hope that it reflects your views closely
enough so that you can support it. If you agree with the Statement,
then:
1. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY FILL OUT the form below and either reply via
email (preferably) or telefax (only if necessary) to the indicated fax
number. Replies received after Wednesday 19th November will not be
included. If replying by email please do not use the 'reply all'
option. If this invitation has been forwarded from a colleague, please
make sure your reply is directed to the originators of this invitation,
namely: t.mitchell (on behalf of Mike Hulme (Greenpeace) and Joe Alcamo).
2. We have identified about 700 climate-related scientists in Europe who are
receiving this email directly from us. If you feel it is appropriate,
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to up to three colleagues in your country
who are working in climate-related fields, who you think may support the
Statement and whom we have not targeted. To identify colleagues whom we
have already invited you can examine the email address list we have used
for your country in the email header (or else appended to the end of this
email). We realize that you are very busy, but this action may have a
very positive influence on public discussions during the critical period
leading up to Kyoto and during the Conference itself."
"I agree to have my name placed on the list of scientists that endorse
the Statement of European Climate Scientists on Actions to Protect Global
Climate."
What can I say, only an idiot would sign this chain letter without peer
reviewed scientific facts. "We can no longer take into
account any suggested modifications" should be the tip off, I would like
to see the list of those who signed this. However more important is how
many approached did not sign.
A1 (Golden Age) free markets, global free trade, innovation, annual per
capita income of $100,00 and developing world $70,000, this was dropped
because it produced too much CO2
B1 (Sustainable Development) high levels of environmental and social
consciousness, average per capita income would only rise to $40,000 by 2100,
but CO2 emissions were a lot lower. The email didn't define A2 & B2.
Of course I’ll be happy to be on board.
The plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and
synthesize the different results is a good one.
To explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured
biases/etc. remains high priority. There
may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to (NSF) [National
Science Foundation] (renewal of
our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.
As a result Michael E. Mann quickly rose to be the dominant figure in the
paleoclimate effort. He and
associates, Ray Bradley, at the University of Massachusetts and Malcolm Hughs,
a meso-climatologist and Professor of Dendrochronology in the Laboratory for
Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona, produced a paper “
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six
centuries. The core of the
paper was a graphic known as the “hockey Stick” presentation of
temperatures over the past century. Michael
E. Mann
elbowed our Keith Briffa (CRU) scientist as the prime tree-ring guru.
Subject: IPCC CO2 Emissions Scenarios
Dear Bob, Hugh, Naki and John, "Mike Hulme has told me something that is
quite alarming about the soon-to-be-released 'IPCC' CO2 emissions scenarios.
If this is correct, you/IPCC should try to remedy it as a matter of some
urgency. He said that the new 'IPCC' CO2 emissions scenarios will still begin
in 1990 and will not use observed (Marland) emissions for the 1990s.
You may either not realize, or not remember, that during the preparation of
the SAR and (especially) TPs 2 and 4, IPCC was frequently criticized for using
out-of-date emissions data that were manifestly wrong during the 1990s. It
would be extremely embarrassing to be subject to the same criticism with the
TAR. Indeed, since the criticism is a justifiable one, it would be inexcusable
not to have responded to it.
"Equally embarrassing should be the fact that, in the published
literature (my 1997 Nature and 1998 GRL papers), this 'error' has already been
avoided.
How can you get around this problem? Ideally, the energy-economics
models need to be revised to begin in or around 2000 instead of 1990.
Indeed, in talking to Rich Richels about this issue, as well as echoing my
concern, he noted that his model (MERGE) is currently being updated in just
this way. He also pointed out that beginning an energy-economics model run in
1990 leads to considerable 'flexibility' in 2000 emissions; when, in fact, the
2000 emissions will already be fixed and known by the time the TAR comes out."
The solution is to push it into the future where it can't be compared to
actual? You call this science?
Robert Watson on July 13 wrote: "Tom: I appreciate you
bringing this critical issue to the fore - you are absolutely right that we
must not look naive. I assume that Naki and Jon et al. Will deal with
this while I an on vacation for the next four days.
David Schimel 15 Jul 1998 wrote to To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: IPCC CO2 Emissions Scenarios above
"I raised this issue at the scoping meeting in Bad (very bad)
Munstereieffel, where it was greeted with general agreement but it
appeared to come as a complete surprise to many that scenarios should have
a relationship to reality.
Atul Jain wrote Tom Wigley, Cc: Sir John Houghton, Patricia
WAGNER, Hugh Pitcher, Jae Edmonds, Mike Hulme, Fortunat Joos,
Richard Richels, Dave Schimel, ssmith: "I got the same impression
from Hugh's talk during the last week Community Meeting on IA, which was
sponsored by NSF. It does not matter so much whether the starting point for
the scenario calculations is 1990 or 2000.
The main concern is that the emission scenarios should reflect the recent
changes in fossil emissions, which show a decreasing trend from 1990 to 1995
in Annex B emissions. Using projected emissions that are incorrect,
rather than updating them with observed emissions, is clearly not acceptable."
After all IPCC is not interest in truth only beliefs.
Tom Wigley July 17 wrote to "Pitcher, Hugh M"
Cc: "'jain'" , Sir John Houghton, Patricia WAGNER , Hugh Pitcher,
Robert Watson , Jae Edmonds, Mike Hulme, Fortunat Joos, Richard Richels, Dave
Schimel , Gregg Marland , ssmith
"I appreciate the responses regarding my concern about the new 'IPCC'
fossil CO2 emissions scenarios. However, no-one seems to be willing to grasp
the nettle and suggest what can be done about it. From what Hugh says, all
scenarios go through the same 2005 value, so this suggests an obvious 'fix'.
(I am curious to know what this 2005 value is, and how close it is to what I
used in my Kyoto papers.). When I did my work, I had Gregg's values to
1995, and was able to make a good guess from what he told me about what
the 1996 value would be. By now, 1996 should be available, and a good estimate
may be possible for 1997. If so, then the linear interpolation would go over
1997 to 2005."
Subject: RE: WGI emissions/scenarios conference
"I think the problem is the same one as in 1988 and 1994. In order to
answer the question: "what is IPCC's best estimate of climate change over
the next hundred years, and the uncertainties?" we need a single best
estimate of emissions (plus a range of uncertainty). In the same way as
modellres say "here is our best estimate of climate sensitivity plus a
range" then the SRES group should do the same thing. Of course they can
make all the usual disclaimers and talk about surprises just as the climate
modellers do. But NOT to come up with an estimate for a Business as Usual
emissions scenario (plus a range, of 6GtC to 30GtC at 2100) seems to be
ducking responsibilities. "Getting away from single number answers"
is very laudable scientifically, but it presents policymakers (for whome the
whole IPCC exercise is undertaken) with a problem. As long as there is a
central estimate and a range, the surely both communities could be happy, as
they ultimately were with BaU in 1990 and IS92a in 1995?"
Dr Mike Hulme wrote: The problem of different Markers having different
1990 emissions values (and the fact that 1990s C emissions diverge from those
observed) is more serious. By 2000 the four Markers range in C emissions
from energy sources from 6.6GtC (B1) to 8.0 GtC (A1). Given where we are
right now (about 6.7GtC in 1997) it seems daft to have such a range for only 2
years hence
(as Tom Wigley has pointed out). For example, by the time TAR is
published we will know that A1 C emissions for 2000 are too high by, say, 15%.
Surely we need to impose a 'fix' on all 4 Markers to account for this."
Subject: Re: climate of the last millennia...
Cc:Keith Briffa, ray bradley , Michael E. Mann
"I look forward to working with you and the rest of the (Climate) gang to
really improve the state of paleo contributions to the detection/attribution
issue. The earlier we get a small group together, the better, so I suggest we
try to take you up on the AMS add-on idea. The White House is interested
in knowing the state-of-the-art, and if we can get everything together at one
www site (including data and figs), I think I can get some needed visibility
for the paleo perspective."
Dr. Jonathan T. Overpeck Head, NOAA Paleoclimatology Program National
Geophysical Data Center Boulder, CO
Subject: Short report on progress in Yamal work
Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov
"Success has already been achieved in developing a continuous larch
ring-width chronology extending from the present back to 4999 BC. My version
of chronology (individual series indexed by corridor method) attached (file
"yamal.gnr"). I could guarantee today that last 4600-years interval
(2600 BC - 1996 AD) of chronology is reliable. Earlier data (5000 BC -
2600 BC) are needed to be examined more properly.
According to reconsructions most favorable conditions for tree growth have
been marked during 5000-1700 BC. At that time position of tree line was far
northward of recent one. Since about 2800 BC gradual worsening of tree
growth condition has begun. Significant shift of the polar tree line to the
south have been fixed between 1700 and 1600 BC.
Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD."
Subject: Re: verification and uniformitarianism
"Frank is correct in that we need to define 'abrupt climatic change' or
even just 'climate change.' I guess that my point is that climate
continues to fluctuate within broad bounds. Everything that we are now
calling 'climate change' is well within the bounds observed within the
prehistoric record of climate fluctuations. Do we call any variation
'climate change' or should we limit the term climate change for anything
considered to be caused by humans? To my mind it is not so much what we
call it, but rather that we keep a clear idea of what we actually talking
about."
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming
agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other
similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the
health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial
effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
This petition was circulated in 1999-2001 and again in 2007-2008 and over
31,000 scientists have signed the petition. The petition was created by
Frederick Seitz (1911-2008) an American physicist, President of Rockefeller
University (1968-1978), founder George C. Marshall Institute and chairman of
the board. In 1994 he published a paper on global warming as a challenge
to scientific Judgment. He questioned whether global warming is
Anthropogenic (meaning: a process derived from human activity, as opposed to
those occurring in a biophysical environments without human
influence.
"Thanks for your comments. Some responses to them are given below"
One additional new comment: ""In attemping to do this...Mann
at al...exemplifies" is unacceptable language to us. We confront the very
problems that are being discussed here, so it is a disservice to us to say our
paper "exemplifies" these problems. It "exposes" or
"confronts" would be fair language, but "exmemplifies" is
unacceptable".
responses to your responses to my original comments: "The 2000 year
trend runs absolutely counter to everything we know about
the mid holocene. Extratropical Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures should
have been at an absolute peak 4000-6000 ybp,
and the 2000 year trend *ought* to at least be heading in that direction. The
fact that is doesn't, and that the trend hasn't been verified in the sense
discussed above, causes me real concern. It would be misleading to argue we
have any reason to believe that NH mean temperatures have done what that
series does 2000 years back in time."
1999 April 19: From: "Raymond S. Bradley" To: Keith Briffa
Subject: CENSORED!!!!!
"I have worked with the UEA group for 20+ years and have great respect
for them and for their work. Of course, I don't agree with
everything they write, and we often have long (but cordial) arguments about
what they think versus my views, but that is life. Indeed, I know that they
have broad disagreements among themselves, so to refer to them as "the
UEA group", as though they all march in lock-step seems bizarre. As
for thinking that it is "Better that nothing appear, than something
unnacceptable to us" .....as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is
acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant.
Science moves forward whether we agree with individiual articles or not."
Raymond S. Bradley Professor and Head of Department
Department of Geosciences University of Massachusetts
Subject: Re: CRU Board
"I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the
research councils' thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep
this document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and
EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be 2million
per year. That might imply that the Councils favour multi-site, clusters, etc,
but they stress they have no preconceptions."
Mick Kelly a Green Peace supporter, wrote: "I feel even more strongly after learning more of the
opposition that we should make a single site bid and capitalise on our proven
track record as the only UK university which has covered and can cover all
aspects of the climate issue from hard science to policy and philosophy."
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit and a a Green Peace supporter
University of East Anglia, United Kingdom
1) Keith didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re
on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000
year timescale. …
2) The errors don’t include all the possible factors. … ”.
I can only
assume 'slangling' is related to 'shagging'? A derogatory remark?
Also keep in mind Michael E. Mann and Phil Jones—essentially
controlled what could and could not be published in the scientific literature
relating to their field.
1999 May 6: From: Phil Jones To: Michael E. Mann
Cc: Keith Briffa, mhughes, rbradley, t.osborn
"I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over here makes
that easier than in the US - but I would ignore the so-called skeptics until
they get to the peer-review arena. I know this is harder for you in the US and
it might become harder still at your new location. I guess it shows though
that what we are doing in important. The skeptics are fighting a losing
battle."
What Jones doesn't say is they control the peer reviews in the UK! The
Climate-Gang would eventually use the Web extensively.
Subject: Re: Temperatures
Cc: ckfolland, imacadam, p.jones, makis
"I don't think that Antarctic is the principal source of
differences. When we compare only the common areas it doesn't really
come into play. There are areas in Mexico and Northern Africa that seem
to contribute more to the differences."
D Parker wrote: To Jim Hansen at NASA
"We are trying to understand the cooling of your data relative to Phil
Jones's (hockey stick chart) in the Southern Hemisphere during the 1990s.
Plots of these were shown at the IPCC meeting in Asheville in March and showed
the same relative cooling, but Figure 2 of your mailed illustrations does not
show it. I have been perusing your web site and have noted that most
recent years are cold over Antarctica in your dataset. As an aside,
recent cooling over Antarctica could be partly forced by ozone losses, though
I note that the cooling is strongest in March-May, not in Sept-Nov when the
ozone hole occurs. If Antarctica cools, there will be consequences for
Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation patterns, conceivably even
contributing to the recent cooling of marine air temperature relative to sea
surface temperature."
James Hansen
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Subject: RE: CO2
Cc: franci , Benjamin Felzer , Mike Hulme , schimel, wigley, kittel, nanr,
Mike MacCracken
I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.
If you want to do 'realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are ultimatley
a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and resources provide
an upper bound).
'Advice' will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect the
fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences."
Dr. Shrikant Jagtap wrote: I'm enjoying the current debate about CO2
levels. I feel that we are using the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use
exactly those CO2 levels for crop model runs, so all data is consistent.
So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong and adjust our explanations
accordingly whenever we agree on things. Now to use different data
will be hard to explain".
Dr. Shrikant Jagtap
104 Rogers Hall, Ag & Biol. Engineering
University Of Florida
Francesco wrote: "You just showed that the Hadley transient run we
are supposed to use for the national assessment is too high, forcing-wise,
because it assumes an overall 1.2% increase in total forcing. I still
have a problem with the real CO2 calculations, in connections to hadley or
CCCM. It seems to me it is still arbitrary to use one or another CO2 curve.
That gives a concentration of real CO2 in 2100 that is > 1050 ppm. THAT'S
50% higher than projected by IS92a, and even 17 % higher than the worst
emission case devised in IS92f. I do not think we should carry out the
national assessment by using "unrealistic" CO2 numbers. Either
solution we opt for, we have to make clear to whomever will receive our
results that the climate forcing scenario is on the "high" side of
things."
"I’ve just read the emails of May
14 onwards regarding carbon dioxide. I must say that I am stunned by the
confusion that surrounds this issue. Basically, I and MacCracken are right and
Felzer, Schimel and (to a lesser extent) Hulme are wrong. There is absolutely,
categorically no doubt about this."
Mike Hulme responds:
"I still have a problem … making sense of what the Met(eorological)
Office Hadley Centre have published …"
Tom Wigley replies:
"Yes, I am aware of the confusion
surrounding what the Met(eorological) Office Hadley Centre did and why. It is
even messier than you realize. … The Hadley people have clearly screwed
things up, but their "errors" don’t really matter given all of the
uncertainties. I didn’t mention this because I thought that opening up that
can of worms would confuse people even more. The climate model output is
also uncertain."
Subject: Re: Vagonov et al. Nature paper
"Frankly, I can't believe it was published as is. It is amazinglly thin
on details. Isn't Sob the same site as your Polar Urals site? If so, why is
the Sob response window so radically shorter then the ones you identified in
your Nature paper for both density and ring width? there is no evidence
for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I
assume that you didn't apply a bodge here). This fully contradicts their
claims, although I do admit that such an effect might be happening in some
places.
Bodge = A clumsy or inelegant job, usually a temporary repair; To do a clumsy
or inelegant job, usually as a temporary repair; insane or off the
rails. To hide the decline at all costs.
Subject: Skeptics
Cc: (Steve Calvert), Keith Briffa weaver
"Like a lot of the "skeptics" out there, D.H. appears far less
interested in honest scientific discourse, than in misleading as many unlucky
soles as possible who wander into his den of disinformation (kind of like the
"scientist" equivalent of an Ant Lion I suppose). Every once
and a while, I do choose to respond to this type of crap (e.g., with regard to
Pat Michaels--my soon-to-be "neighbor"'s recent pieces in his
"World Climate Report"). In D.H.'s case, I doubt even more that this
would be at all productive. We just have
to wait and see if he ever tries to get this kind of thing published in the
peer-reviewed literature. For our part, I think the best approach is to, as
Jonathan Overpeck has so effectivley been doing, try whenever possible to
educate the lay public about the essential distinction between
peer-reviewed science and un-peer- reviewed...., well, whatever you want
to call it."
Tom Writes: "My colleague, Steve Calvert, has just brought to my
attention a website of which I was unaware but you probably know well. It's at
http://www.erols.com/dhoyt1 and run
by Doug Hoyt. Amongst other things Hoyt has taken the Michael E. Mann reconstruction and reconstructed it by "removing the effect on tree ring
thickness that results from CO2 fertilization" (paraphrased). You will
see the figure on his site. He concludes that there is no significant warming
in the last half of this century relative to the last millenium. Do you know
this guy? Are you familiar with his reconstruction of your
reconstruction? Didn't Keith Briffa correct his tree-ring reconstructions for
CO2 fertilization? [Keith: any comments?]. Steve and I would be most
interested to hear your collective comments...
To close this, here is a bit cut and pasted from Hoyt's sight:"
Doug Hoyt says:
"There are three important points to make about the reported warming of
the last 20 years:
1. The warming has occurred mostly at night and not during the day. This
result is inconsistent with a warming caused by greenhouse gases, but is
consistent with urban heat island and other surface effects.
2. The reported warming has occurred only at the surface and not in the upper
atmosphere. This type of warming is completely opposite to what is predicted
if greenhouse gases are the cause. Again these observations are
consistent with problems in the surface measurements.
3. The warming has occurred primarily in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes
with little in the polar and tropical regions. This result is consistent with
urban influences, but is incompatible with the climate warming predicted from
greenhouse gases which predict it to be largest in the polar regions. In
short, the reported warming is inconsistent with warming due to greenhouse
gases in its temporal, vertical, and geographical distribution. The reported
warming is consistent with problems in the surface network."
T.F. Pedersen Oceanography, Earth and Ocean Sciences, 6270 University
Boulevard, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada
Thomas R. Karl director of (NOAA) National Oceanic and Atmosphere
Administration said we should be able to control pure scientific research
without constant fear of an “audit” by Stevan McIntrye (of Canada).
As you know, I have refused to send McIntire the “derived” model
data he requests, nor will I provide McIntry with computer programs.
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Cc: tkarl, Michael E. Mann
"Walked into this hornet's nest this morning! Keith and Phil Jones have both
raised some very good points. I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith's
series in the plot. 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 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 Michael E. 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!"
Keith
Briffa wrote: "First , like Phil Jones , 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. 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. ((MWP) Medievel Warming
Period.) 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."
Cris Folland writes; "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."
Phil Jones writes: :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 Michael E. Mann et al and Jones et al and in another
section Keith 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.'
Subject: RE: IPCC revisions
Cc: tkarl, Michael E. Mann
"Mike , I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was
motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus
than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should
not 'muddy the waters' by including contradictory evidence worried me . IPCC
is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the
evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series
( such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally
important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where
it does not exist. And I certainly don't want to abuse my lead
authorship by advocating my own work.
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 Jones's more extratropical series) that the major discrepancies
between Phil Jones'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 Jones's series, differs in large part in exactly
the opposite direction that Phil Jones'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 Michael E. Mann et al series."
IPCC was fully aware that there was no consensus in the science community.
1999
September 28: From: "Sujata Gupta" To: m.hulme
Subject: Re: UK National Climate Change Centre
Cc: t.d.davies
"The UK government has recently requested bids from UK universities to
house a new 'National Climate Change Centre'. The Centre would receive
funds of 2 million pounds sterling per year for (at least initially) five
years. The role of the Centre would be to compliment existing work on
climate modelling and data analysis (IPCC WGI areas) by focussing on
'solutions' (mitigation and adaptation options
and their implementation), specifically for the UK government and business
community, but within a global context. The emphasis appears to be on
IPCC WG3 area with a strong commitment to integrated research, but with some
overlap with WG2. The Centre would carry out independent research, but
would also be expected to make use of, and to integrate, exisiting UK research
and expertise. It would be expected to contribute to and to foster
interdisciplinary research that underpins sustainable solutions to the climate
change problem."
The Objective is not to determine if a problem truly exists
but to find solutions to a climate change problem.
Subject: national climate change centre meeting - documents
Cc: m.hulme
Who are the co-applicants? Hulme, Davies, Jones, Liss, Palutikof, Parry,
Turner, Watkinson, Brown? Allen, Arnell, Berkhout, Bristow, Cannell,
Choularton, Halliday, Jenkins, Kohler, Launder, Markvard, Reynard, Shepherd,
Shackley? – is this too many?
"The prospect of human-induced global climate change initially
emerged as a research challenge for the natural sciences. Since the
causes of climate change are profoundly rooted in society and the
consequences of climate change for society can only be understood through
social and cultural insight, the social sciences have become increasingly
engaged in the research effort. With attention now turning to
'solutions' to climate change, new climate change management strategies need
identifying and promoting, need to be targeted at both mitigation and
adaptation objectives, and need to embrace a full array of emerging policy
instruments and engineering technologies. The participation of the
engineering and technological sciences, alongside the environmental and social
sciences, has therefore become critical to meet this rapidly evolving research
agenda."
"But climate change is not just intellectually embracing challenge.
It is also an experiential one. Climate change is unique in that it
poses
questions on space and time scales over which individual humans (especially
space) and governments (especially time) are not used to thinking or do not
find it easy to think. In this sense climate change is a problem of
ultimate penetration and of ultimate connectivity; penetration, because we
will all experience and react to climate change in some way, and connectivity,
because emissions are driven by a global economy, because the response of the
physical system is planetary, and because these social and natural systems are
intimately co-evolving. The intellectual and experiential challenges of
climate change create a new and distinctive lens through which we can envision
the future. These insights into the future - often termed scenarios -
suggest to us various tools and instruments that may allow us to fashion and
shape the future. This sets us out on a course of climate change
management, an active and considered pursual of desirable long-term
objectives. Establishing such objectives is essential in order to
adequately define the 'problem' of climate change, and even more essential if
'solutions' to this problem are going to be designed. The prospect of
climate change, at the very least therefore, forces us to think about what
sort of future we regard as desirable.
The UK climate change centre will be built around three key principles:
The deployment of practiced, inter-disciplinary research teams, who have
already pioneered new insights and approaches into the questions raised by
climate change, but releasing them to explore novel approaches for thinking
laterally across natural, social and engineering sciences.
The practicing of an inclusionary process of research in which we explore with
their developers - ways of mobilising many of the new technologies,
lifestyles, regulatory mechanisms that are emerging from our technological,
social and political cultures to allow us to manage climate change in the
twenty-first century.
The establishment of a focal point in the UK and abroad for the open and
constructive exchange of insights concerning climate change solutions across
cultural divides - public-private, households-corporations, North-South."
The inequality of science is inevitable - only climate science encompasses all
the lesser sciences.
Mankind's natural unit is climate change science.
The state only exists to serve science.
World Government must be headed by a scientist.
Solicit Government and big business support by appealing to power, and greed
Trickery or force is ok to achieve a result. Need a probe of criticism
of skeptics and doubters
Inquisition thinking - control peer
reviews
- manage climate papers and editors
- tell the big lie - "Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore and sponsored
by the
IPCC and United Nations
Indulgences thinking - Cap-N-Trade
- Carbon Tax
- GDP Tax
Economic
control - stop globalization, reduce income by $60,000
per person by 2100
- eliminate freed trade
- replace democracy with socialization, massive transfer of wealth to
developing nations
Subject: Keith Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Cc: Keith Briffa, Phil Jones
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data
are attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although
we usually stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature
signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't
put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this
to ensure the same filter was used for all curves. The raw data are the same
as used in Keith Briffa et al. (1998). "
Reply-to: Wolfgang Cramer
"Dear Mike, I received the following e-mail on October 6: from Simon
Allen University of Edinburgh
"Issue: Will terrestrial carbon sinks saturate? It has been
proposed that the assimilation of CO2 by vegetation will reach saturation
within the foreseeable future as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to
rise and that, conversely, increase in temperature will lead to open-ended
increase in respiration by soil heterotrophs, so that at some point in the not
too distant future, CO2 efflux will come to exceed CO2 influx. This
far-reaching assumption derives from global models that lack a consideration
of acclimation, feed backs and biological constraints acting on these
processes. This proposition will be critically evaluated using Dynamic Global
Vegetation Models (DGVM's) that include appropriate feed backs derived from
new data that are becoming available from on-going experiments in the UK and
elsewhere.
Wolfgang writes: To me, this comes at a very strange moment,
since I am, with Bert Bolin, in a very strange situation with the completion
of our second draft of the IPCC Special Report on Sinks due Land Use and
Forestry. The very issue they propose to collaborate with Colin and
myself about was the most contentious one of all, and Paul on one side, and
several others including myself on the other side, had diametrically opposing
opinions. In fact, I simply believe Jarvis either wasn't able or not wasn't
willing to understand what the real issue was.
Subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL: CRU scenarios
Cc: rwatson
"Dear Mike, I wish I could explain better what Bob's (Watson) problem
entails -- it is intensely political. The stated concern of
Sensenbrenner is that the use of the SRES scenarios prior to their
ratification might, in some way, jeopardize IPCC's "independence and
objectivity". Sensenbrenner apparently uses as guidelines in making
his judgement "IPCC's 'Principles' (as) approved in Vienna, Austria in
October 1998" together with "June 11 and 28, 1999 letters"
giving "Appendix A to the Principles, which is entitled 'Procedures for
the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports'
(which was) approved ... in April 1999". Sensenbrenner implies that
these documents "raise concerns about the use of preliminary IPCC
material by Dr. Wigley and the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change for non-IPCC purposes, apparently without IPCC sanction".
He considers that "these issues (are) significant because they relate
directly to the integrity of the IPCC process".
In my case, I bypassed the "IPCC process" by obtaining permission,
in writing, from the 4 groups who produced the marker scenarios. I did
not acknowledge the CIESIN web site. In your case, apparently, you
did. The problem here is that this site stated very clearly that the
data were "not for citation or quotation". Did you take notice
of this?
You refer back to the July 1998 Bureau meeting agreeing that the preliminary
SRES scenarios (in your words) "could, and should, be used by
scientists". From my reading of the background material, this is
subtly wrong -- the Bureau only agreed that the data could be used by
"the GCM modeling community". The issue is what is meant by
the "GCM modeling community".
The key questions, therefore, are:
(1) Do these rules allow the use of these data by anyone?
(2) Do the SRES data, as it appears on this site, include the statement
"not for citation or quotation"?
(3) Does this make moot the whole issue of the use of the SRES scenarios?
In other words, if these data are available to all and sundry, with no
restrictions, through DDC, then no one can complain about their use.
(Although, in your case, since you acknowledged CIESIN rather than DDC, you
may still be subject to criticism.)
What this could amount to is a loophole in the IPCC rules of procedure.
Sensenbrenner might then argue that this loophole should be closed by
clarifying and tightening the rules for the DDC.
I hope you can see from the above quotes and somewhat convoluted arguments
what a legal and political minefield this is. These sorts of issues do
not seem to arise outside of the USA; but here they take on an enormous
importance. One must tread very cautiously."
1999 November 16: From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,Michael E. Mann, mhughes
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: Keith Briffa, t.osborn
"Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send
that either later today or first thing tomorrow. 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. Thanks for the comments,
Ray. Cheers Phil Jones"
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
NR4 7TJ
UK
Subject: Re: BGS, Esso, & CV for Tyndall bid
"The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they're having
to get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer)
just a few weeks ago, so we've had to work around the new CE, to whom all this
is news...). They know the deadline and will do their best for us."
Subject: Nature paper and beyond
Cc: Michael E. Mann,tom.,Keith Briffa, t.osborn
"I've shown that the borehole data in Europe agree well with the long instrumental
data in both the UK and Europe. The biggest differences/problems seem to come
with the North American borehole data, which show the 16/17/18th
(century) data much cooler than the European/Asian/African data in the
16/17th century. I'm still reminded by the potential effects of land-use
changes, principally in the eastern US, which could be making your North
American series too cool. Is it possible to subdivide the
North American borehole data into regions where we can be confident of no
land-use changes (possibly and thinking aloud say Canada and the western
US and Alaska)? 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. 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 ?"
Subject: Re: ESSO
Cc: Mike Hulme
Esso have selectively quoted to (over)-emphasise the uncertainties re. climate
change, but at least they have moved beyond denial and recognise that
potential unknown long-term risks may require tangible short-term
>actions. Seems to be some room for negotiation over what research
needs doing. I would think Tyndall should have an open mind about this
and try to find the slants that would appeal to Esso. Uncertainty and
risk analysis and C sequestration may be the sort of things that appeal."
Subject: ShellCc: t.oriordan, t.o'riordan
Reply-to: m.kelly
"Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
conditions." This is interesting Greenpeace accuses Big Oil as
supporting anti-Global Warming Groups.
Subject: Re: the ghost of futures past
Cc: alverson, jto,Keith Briffa, mhughes, pedersen, whitlock, Michael E. Mann
"Sorry this kept you awake...but I have also found it a rather alarming
graph. [The infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph']
The graph patches together 3 things: Michael E. Mann et al NH mean annual temps + 2
sigma standard error for AD1000-1980, + instrumental data for 1981-1998 + IPCC
("do not quote, do not cite" projections for GLOBAL temperature for
the next 100 years, relative to 1998.
[......At this point Keith Alverson throws up his hands in despair at the
ignorance of non-model amateurs...]
"First, I should point out that we calibrated versus 1902-1980, then
"verified" the approach using an independent data set for
1854-1901. The results were good, giving me confidence that if we had a
comparable proxy data set for post-1980 (we don't!) our proxy-based
reconstruction would capture that period well. Unfortunately, the proxy
network we used has not been updated, and furthermore there are many/some/tree
ring sites where there has been a "decoupling" between the long-term
relationship between climate and tree growth, so that things fall apart in
recent decades....this makes it very difficult to demonstrate what I just
claimed. We can only call on evidence from many other proxies for
"unprecedented" states in recent years (e.g. glaciers, isotopes in
tropical ice etc..).
"Keith Briffa points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century
calibration period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and
makes it unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an
extraordinary period as the 1990s with much success (I may be mis-quoting him
somewhat, but that is the general thrust of his criticism). Indeed, in
the verification period, the biggest "miss" was an apparently very
warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all.
This makes criticisms of the "antis" difficult to respond to (they
have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are "on the
scent"). Furthermore, it may be that Michael E. Mann et al simply don't have
the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. in
the (very few) proxies that we used. We tried to demonstrate that this
was not a problem of the tree ring data we used by re-running the
reconstruction with & without tree rings, and indeed the two efforts were
very similar -- but we could only do this back to about 1700. Whether we
have the 1000 year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I
hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might
have been "warm", to the irritation of my co-authors!). So,
possibly if you crank up the trend over 1000 years, you find that the envelope
of uncertainty is
comparable with at least some of the future scenarios, which of course begs
the question as to what the likely forcing was 1000 years ago. (My money is
firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10-Be data..).
Another issue is whether we have estimated the totality of uncertainty in the
long-term data set used -- maybe the envelope is really much larger, due to
inherent characteristics of the proxy data themselves....again this would
cause the past and future envelopes to overlap."
Frank Oldfield writes: "I've lost sleep fussing about the
figure coupling Michael E. Mann et al. (or any alternative climate-history time series)
to the IPCC scenarios. It seems to me to encapsulate the whole past-future
philosophical dilemma that bugs me on and off (Ray - don't stop reading just
yet!), to provide potentially the most powerful peg to hang much of PAGES
future on, at least in the eyes of funding agents, and, by the same token, to
offer more hostages to fortune for the politically motivated and malicious. It
also links closely to the concept of being inside or outside 'the envelope' -
which begs all kinds of notions of definition. Given what I see as its its
prime importance, I therefore feel the need to understand the whole thing
better. I don't know how to help move things forward and my ideas, if they
have any effect at all, will probably do the reverse. At least I might
get more sleep having unloaded them, so here goes......
1. How can we justify bridging proxy-based reconstruction via the last bit of
instrumental time series to future model-based scenarios.
2. How can the incompatibilities and logical inconsistencies inherent in the
past-future comparisons be reduced?
3. More specifically, what forms of translation between what we know
about the past and the scenarios developed for the future deal adequately with
uncertainty and variability on either side of the 'contemporary hinge' in a
way that improves comparability across the hinge.
4. Which, if any, scenarios place our future in or out of 'the envelope'
in terms of experienced climate as distinct from calculated forcing? This idea
of an envelope is an engaging concept, easy to state in a quick and sexy way
(therefore both attractive and dangerous); the future could leave us hoisted
by our own petard unless it is given a lot more thought.
1. I am more or less assuming that this can already be addressed from
data available and calculations completed, by pointing to robust calibration
over the chosen time interval and perhaps looking separately at variability
pre 1970, if the last 3 decades really do seem to have distorted the response
signatures for whatever reasons. I imagine developing this line of argument
could feed into the 'detection' theme in significant ways.
2 & 3. This is where life gets complicated. For the past we have biases,
error bars that combine sources of uncertainty, and temporal variability.
For the future we have no variability, simply a smooth, mean, monotonic trend
to a target 'equilibrium' date. Bandwidths of uncertainty reflect model
construction and behaviour. So we are comparing apples and oranges when
we make any statement about the significance of the past record for the future
on the basis of the graph. Are there ways of partially overcoming this by
developing different interactions between past data and future models?"
2000 August 8: From: "S. Fred Singer" To: "Raymond S.
Bradley"
Subject: Re:Your msg about climate/energy policy
Cc: Michael E. Mann, pjm8x
"You sent me this op-ed (?) (Letter to editor?) about the need to convert
the US from a carbon-based economy to a hydrogen-based economy. I can't
guess why you wanted me to know your views, but it does help me to better
understand what motivates your scientific work and judgment. It also
throws some doubt about your impartiality in promoting the "hockey stick'
temperature curve that a number of us have been critical of.
In any case, I doubt if espousal of this energy policy will help BP and ARCO
discover a source of hydrogen somewhere.
You quote the "progressive" Business Council approvingly: "We
accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and
environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its
consequences."
And from BP chairman : "the time to consider the policy dimensions of
policy change is not when the link between greenhouse gases
and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be
discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part."
I note that BP and ARCO are still out there exploring for oil; they don't seem
to be quite ready yet to put real money where their mouth is.
You call for the US to take leadership in stabilizing the climate.
Perhaps the government will turn to you to learn how to do this. A far
less ambitious goal would be to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of
CO2. According to the IPCC this would require an emission
reduction of 60 to 80 percent (with respect to 1990) --- WORLDWIDE.
Have you ever considered the consequences of such a policy -- assuming it
could really be adopted?" GOOD POINT.
Subject: Re: THC collapse
Cc: Thomas Stocker , Jerry Meehl , Timothy Carter , maureen.joseph, lindam,
m.hulme, peter.whetton, giorgi@ictp.trieste.it, cubasch, ckfolland, hewitson,
"Stouffer, Ron" , DEASTERL
" Please get the inconclusive out! By the way,"possible" still
has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small
probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably
OK--but "quite possible" conveys medium confidence better--but then
why not use medium confidence, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance
paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of
disucssions were having now.
Tom Karl, Director of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center wrote:
"Steve, I agree with your assesement of inconclusive --- quite possible
is much better and we use 'possible' in the US National
Assessment. Surveys has shown that the term 'possible' is
interpreted in this range by the public.
Stephen replied: "but please get rid of the ridiculous
"inconclusive" for the .34 to .66 subjective probability range. It
will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay persons--read
decisionmakers--since that probability range represents medium levels of
confidence, not rare events. A phrase like "quite possible" is
closer to popular lexicon, but inconclusive applies as well to very likely or
very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the
outside."
Steve Schneider of the Department of Biological
Sciences at Stanford University in the United States. Some suggest that
to anyone even vaguely familiar with probability and statistics, Schneider’s
suggestion is unforgiveable; and it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to understand
why. Placing any emphasis at all on a 34% to 66% confidence interval is
a complete misapplication of probability and statistics. Standard scientific
practice is to only consider a result to be significant if the probability of
it being true is estimated to be greater than some pre-determined
threshold—typically 95%, for everyday analyses, or some more stringent
threshold if the ramifications of getting it wrong are more grave.
2000 September 5: "Kyoto left me very disillusioned by the apparent
lack of connection between climate science and policy -in the protocol there
was not one sentence discussing what we need to do to stabilise the climate in
the long term, based on scientific predictions. This made me wonder, what is
the use of my intricate research on air-sea CO2 exchange, if the policymakers
ignore
even the most basic knowledge?"
Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in
the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent
to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would
involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role
in setting the research agenda etc
Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a
clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are
particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM"
2000 September 11: From: GIORGI FILIPPO To: Chapter 10 LAs (other
Lead Authors)-- Congbin Fu , GIORGI FILIPPO , Bruce Hewitson , Mike
Hulme , Jens Christensen , Linda Mearns , Richard Jones , Hans von Storch ,
Peter Whetton
Subject: On "what to do?"
"First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather
unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material
as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). The fact is
that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in
this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is
its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition
that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the
Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave
results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the
CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are
very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous
precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit
unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to
do this."
Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist and Head, Physics of Weather and
Climate Section The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics
Trieste, ITALY
The "inconvenient truth" is that the
IPCC had absolutely no idea what they were doing and lack even a rudimentary
knowledge of statistics and process.
Hans von Storch wrote "I have already indicated that I favour the
n-1 version. Obviously, this choice is arbitrary, but it was made BEFORE we
did the analysis. By changing the criterion AFTER we have seen the data, we
may be targeted by critics for biased rules. Using material, which is
unpublished and unreviewed is already a bit shacky (Hans Oerlemans is
unwilling to participate in the IPCC process because of a similar incident in
the 1995 report!).
Hans von Storch, Institute of Hydrophysics GKSS Research Center, Max-Planck-Strasse
Peter Whetton argues "… agreement
… could be expected 37% of the time just by chance …. With nine models the
equivalent figure for "all models but one have to agree" is only
3.5%, and it is still much lower for "all models but two have to
agree" (18%)… (assuming that my somewhat rusty probability calculations
are correct). It really depends on what we had understood the purpose of the
criterion to be. I am not certain how much this was discussed"
As noted above, standard scientific practice is to ensure that the chances of
getting agreement purely by luck is less than some percentage, often 5%. To
argue that the criterion is too strong because the chance of such a
"false (lucky) positive" is only 3.5%—and that the previous
situation of allowing a 37% chance of false positive is far preferable—is
simply astounding: it shows a poor understanding of the fundamental principles
of statistics. But more astonishing is Whetton’s lack of confidence in
performing an elementary calculation in probability theory, that 16-year-old
high school students routinely calculate every day!
Subject: Re: old stuff
Cc: Keith Briffa
"The difference between the Campito Mountain record and, for example, the
one from the Polar Urals that you mention, is that there is no meaningful
correlation between the Campito record and local temperature, whereas there is
a strong correlation in the Polar Urals case. I give references to the
work reporting this phenomenon at the end of this message, but I'm afraid I'm
missing the references to the technical comments that are being responded to
in the last two. If you examine my Fig 1 closely you will see that the Campito
record and Keith's reconstruction from wood density are extraordinarily
similar until 1850. After that they differ not only in the lack of
long-term trend in Keith's record, but in every other respect - the
decadal-scale correlation breaks down. I tried to imply in my e-mail,
but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is
still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any
case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local
temperature. Not all high-elevation tree-ring records from the West that might
reflect temperature show this upward trend. It is only clear in the driest
parts (western) of the region (the Great Basin), above about 3150 meters
elevation, in trees old enough (>~800 years) to have lost most of their
bark - 'stripbark' trees. As luck would have it, these are precisely the trees
that give the chance to build temperature records for most of the Holocene. I
am confident that, before AD1850, they do contain a record of decadal-scale
growth season temperature variability. I am equally confident that, after that
date, they are recording something else. I'm split between Harvard
Forest and UMASS these days, and my copy of your paper is not with me today.
I'd be interested to know what the name of the site for the LaMarche central
Colorado record was."
They can't seem to agree if "temperature
proxies" are measuring temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, or some other
complicated combination
Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks References
Reply-to: daly
Cc: VINCENT GRAY , Onar Åm , "John L. Daly" , "P. Dietze"
, mmaccrac, Michael E. Mann , rbradley, wallace, Thomas Crowley <tom, Phil
Jones, sfbtett, jarl.ahlbeck, richard, McKitrick , Bjarnason <agust, Harry
Priem , balberts
Dear all "Here's another MWE reference, originally announced by the
Idso's. I looked up the abstract from the South African Journal of Science.
That puts the MWE (Medieval Warming Event) and LIA (Little Ice Age) into
South Africa."
They would later claim it was a non-event or at best regional not
global. John L. Daly signs his e-mail "Still Waiting For
Greenhouse" and "All science is numbers, but not all numbers is science"
2000 October 10: From: "paul horsman" .greenpeace.org To: mick
kelly a a Green Peace supporter
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?
Subject: Re: JOC Review
"Professor Michael E. Mann, is Editor of Journal of Climate"
2000 November 4: From: Mike Hulme To: barker,vira
Subject: Fwd: BP funding
"BP Amoco Plc, the world's No. 3 publicly traded oil company, and Ford
Motor Co. said they will give Princeton University $20 million over 10 years
to study ways to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. BP
said it will give $15 million. Ford, the world's second-biggest automaker, is
donating $5 million. The gift is part of a partnership between the companies
aimed at addressing concerns about climate change. Carbon dioxide is the
most common of the greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming.
London-based BP said it plans to give $85 million in the next decade to
universities in the U.S. and U.K. to study environmental and energy issues. In
the past two years, the company has pledged $40 million to Cambridge
University, $20 million to the University of California at Berkeley and $10
million to the University of Colorado at Boulder. "
Richard Lindzen, another lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, accused the IPCC
of being "driven by politics".
Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph, which was featured promently in
the 2001 IPCC report was created using only portions of a data set. When
all the data was used it showed a temperature decline. An upside
down hockey stick.
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of
Alabama, and another lead author of the TAR, then told the London Times that
the 5.8 degree model result was “not going to happen” and added that
climate models “are not the real world. They have many shortcomings - the
sort of tiny shortcomings that can make long-term predictions suspect.”
Christy also debunked alarmism about droughts, floods, tornadoes and the
spread of malaria.
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He
had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the
idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of
scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even
asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had
misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of
“undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.
Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again
Reply-to: daly
Cc: To 50 people
"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
-
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.
Michael E. 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 (Mediveal Warming
Event) 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."
The future would prove the 'hockey Stick Graph' was not only bad science but fraudulent
science.
Wallace S. Broecker wrote:
" The reconstruction of global temperatures during the last millennium
can provide important clues for how climate may change in the future. A
recent, widely cited reconstruction
(1) (leaves the impression that the 20th century warming was unique during the
last millennium). It shows no hint of the Medieval Warm Period (from
around 800 to 1200 A.D.) during which the Vikings colonized Greenland.
(2), (suggesting that this warm event was regional rather than
global.) It also remains unclear why just at the dawn of the Industrial
Revolution and before the emission of substantial amounts of anthropogenic
greenhouse gases, Earth's temperature began to rise steeply. Was
it a coincidence? I do not think so. Rather, I suspect that the post-1860
natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings
spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present
interglacial, the Holocene. Bond et al. have argued, on the basis of the ratio
of iron-stained to clean grains in ice-rafted debris in North Atlantic
sediments, that climatic
conditions have oscillated steadily over the past 100,000 years (3), (with
an average period close to 1500
years). They also find evidence for the Little Ice Age (from about 1350
to 1860) (3). (I agree with the authors that the swing from the Medieval
Warm Period to the Little Ice Age was the penultimate of these oscillations)
and will try to make the case that the Medieval Warm Period was global
rather than regional."
The numbered comments are Michael E. Mann's
Subject: Fwd: RE: Science issue Feb 22/23
"So Julia (Uppenbrink, the editor at
Science) handled it. Even she thought it was handwaving, but it passed
the usual Science review process. Obviously this isn't great
as none of us got to review it. Odd that she didn't send it to one
of us here as she knew we were writing the article she asked us
to! Anyway that is water under the bridge."
Jones and Michael E. Mann like to be in the position to block science reports they don't
like before being published.
Subject: Re: letter to Science
Cc: tom, hpollack, mhughes, rbradley, Phip Jones,Keith Briffa
" It seems to me there are 2 primary issues to address:
(A) what does proxy evidence say about whether the Medieval Warm period was
global
(B) what do we know about potential mechanisms for the Medieval Warm period
(i) evidence for a forced phenomenon
(ii) evidence for internal variability
A reader could ask "Ok, if 50% of the variability is explained by
volcanic and solar forcing, that doesn't exclude the other 50% playing a
strong role for events such as the Medieval Warming."
Subject: RE: problem
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:37:18 -0000
Cc: Keith Briffa, Michael E. Mann, Phil Jones
"In IPCC we only chose to show 1700 to present, which is a better
calibrated/verified interval than back to 1650, so I'd encourage you guys to
restrict it to 1700-present if you can."
The obvious reason is to not show (MWP) Medieval Worming Period that is warmer
than 20 century that would undermibne man as a causal factor.
Michael E. Mann writes: "We may have to let the peer-review
process decide this, but I think you might benefit from knowing the consensus
of the very able group we have assembled in this email list, on what Esper and
you have done?"
Ed Cook parries admirably: "Of course, I know everyone in this
"very able group" and respect their opinions and scientific
credentials. The same obviously goes for you. That is not to say that we can’t
disagree. After all, consensus science can impede progress as much as promote
understanding."
Michael E. Mann is taken aback, and tries a different tack: "I don’t
in any way doubt yours and Jan’s integrity here. I’m just a bit
concerned that the result is getting used publicly, by some, before it has
gone through the gauntlet of peer review. Especially because it is, whether
you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil Jones
and coworkers; this is dangerous. I think there are some legitimate
issues that need to be sorted out ….I’d be interested to be kept posted on
what the status of the manuscript is."
Ed Cook responds with a level of integrity foreign to Michael E. Mann’s
mind-set: "Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by
both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a
dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest
decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous
accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry.
I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is
the truth or at least bloody close to it."
Michael E. Mann is obviously out gunned by intelligence as well as integrity.
Ed Cook says "I have growing doubts about the validity and use of
error estimates that are being applied to reconstructions …. (mathematical
reasons follow). But I really think that uncertainty bars on graphs, as often
presented, may potentially distort and unfairly degrade the interpreted
quality of reconstructions. So, are the uncertainty bars better than nothing?
I’m not so sure."
Michael E. Mann responds by agreeing that the estimates of uncertainties are
wrong, but that wrong estimates are better than nothing: What you say is
of course true, but we have to start somewhere. …I firmly believe that a
reconstruction without some reasonable estimate of uncertainty is almost
useless! … I believe that this is absolutely essential to do, whether or not
we can do a perfect job."
Michael E. Mann is arguing that graphs without error estimates would not look
credible, which is more important than the estimates actually being
meaningful.
Ed Cook obviously is correct
2001 May 23: John Christy explains the
events of the filming of an episode of "20/20" for the American
Broadcasting Company, in which he fears he will be quoted out of context, but
he includes the following comment: However, I do agree with the
"20/20" host’s premise … that the dose of climate change
disasters that have been dumped on the average citizen is designed to be
overly alarmist and could lead us to make some bad policy decisions. (I’ve
got a good story about the writers of the TIME cover piece a couple of months
ago that proves they were not out to discuss the issue but to ignore science
and influence government.)
Michael E. Mann writes Your comments
below remain disturbingly selective and myopic, and we have dealt with similar
comments many times over … If the American Broadcasting Company is looking
to do a hatchet job on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change so be it
(this doesn’t surprise me—"20/20" co-anchor John Stossel has an
abysmal record in his treatment of environmental issues, from what I have
heard), but I’ll be very disturbed if you turn out to have played into this
in a way that is unfair to your co-authors on Chapter 2 of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, and your colleagues in
general. This wouldn’t have surprised me coming from certain individuals,
but I honestly expected more from you…
2001
June 12: From: Phil Jones To: "Michael E. Mann" ,
Thomas R Karl
Subject: Re: NRC report on climate change
Cc: trenbert,"Michael E. Mann" , rbradley, tom crowley , mhughes, Keith Briffa, Folland Chris
"I'd just like to echo all the points made by Mike and Kevin. The logic
behind saying that there isn't enough paleo data before 1600 yet there
may have been even early millennia which experienced warming of almost 2 C per
millennium escapes me.
Michael E. Mann wrote: Hi Tom; "The criticism that there are only
"4 useful sites" for reconstructing climate over the past 1000 years
is especially irksome and ignorant. Does Tom C. agree that there are only 4
meaningful records that contribute to his reconstruction? Does Phil Jones, or Keith?
Where does that number come from? The same source as R.L.'s GHG sensitivity
factor of 1.0 (i.e., the ether) I suspect.
How odd that the panel was happy to claim that there were millennial
periods with 2 degree C warming in global temperature during the holocene (for
which there is no reliable empirical evidence whatsoever) and yet focuses its
skepticism on much more detailed and careful assessments of the most
recent millennium."
Thomas R Karl wrote: "It was a very interesting Panel.
I should emphasize however, that the Paleo record (at least the last 1000
years)
has many critics, and we really need to show how the data prior to 1600 stands
up. Some contend there are only 4 good sites in the first part of the
record. I am not sure of this, perhaps Mike and others will explain this
in Chicago."
Kevin Trenberth wrote: "While the report overall is an
endorsement of the IPCC report and the process, it has a lot of
"buts" in it, and the overall tone is to somewhat downplay the
problem. It does not focus on policy relevant issues. The report was
done in a very hurried fashion and perhaps as a result, there are several
factual errors or misstatements and there are errors of omission."
2001 July 2: Ian Harris of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia writes to the Norwich Green Party mailing list, responding to a comment that natural events can cause climate changes that swamp any effects of mankind: We’re looking at an unprecedented acceleration in temperature … Even if it turns out to be naturally-occurring, who’s willing to take that chance? We should be trying to wean ourselves off of unsustainable energy generation and use anyway. This is a remarkable admission: even if the scientists are completely wrong, we "should" force changes on mankind that could cost trillions of dollars, on simplistic ideological grounds? Actually the Clinton-Gore Administration is being made aware that the USA has used up its conventional oil and must find an alternative to imported oil and a reason to justify the change.
2001
July 13: Michael Zammit Cutajar, Executive Secretary of the
UNFCCC, who stated at the closing session of the IGBP in Amsterdam,
"I believe that the political process on climate change would be greatly
assisted by agreement on a target for atmospheric concentrations, at least an
intermediate target. This would give a sense of where the whole
international community should be heading and a basis for apportioning
responsibility for getting there."
2001
August 14: From: Mike Hulme To: "Matilda Lee"
Subject: Re: Request from The Ecologist magazine
"The Ecologist, a London-based internationally recognized environmental
magazine, will be publishing a Special Edition on Climate Change in
September. For this edition, we believe it would be extremely useful to
gather the opinions of the top climatologists on an issue for which there is
growing interest by those concerned with climate change. This issue is
addressed in Article II of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, which states:
"The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal
instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization
of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow
ecosystems of adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food
production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in
a sustainable manner. The basis for establishing 'danger' is
contested. One could argue that 'dangerous' climate change is change in
climate that leads to the death of just *one* person; or argue that some
benefit/cost ratio should be used; or argue that if a sovereign state is
extinguished (e.g. a Pacific atoll nation) then that is the definition of
'dangerous'. Thus you can see that I do not believe we can arbitrarily
choose 550ppm or 650ppm, as done by many scientific pronouncements (including
the IPCC and others), and claim that is our target. This can only be
done by using the instruments of social and political discourse on an
international scale. What we can say is that the higher the
concentration of CO2 reached the greater the likely risks associated with that
concentration will be. But this is a relative argument, not an absolute
one."
There is no agreement in the science, yet this is a
political solution looking for a problem to justify 'World
Government'. The solution is to create a 'Pandemic of Fear'.
2001
August 27: From: Rob Swart To: wigley
Cc: m.hulme, parryml, Rob Swart , steve smith , s.raper, Tsuneyuki
MORITA , tim.carter
"The problem is clearly one of the science-policy interface. If science
cannot demonstrate that it makes a difference in terms of avoided climate
change and impacts if GHG concentrations are stabilised, why bother? Currently
a Danish guy, Björn Lomborg, is making the headlines again (Guardian, New
York Times, Economist), TV programmes, etc.) telling the public (and
policymakers) not only that there aren;'t any environmental problems,
but also, even if climate change may be real, it does not make any sense at
all to do something about it, since efforts to control GHG emissions are
expensive and the mitigation would not make any difference at all anyway in
terms of avoiding negative consequences. Very popular message. I'd like
to reflect a little bit more on this and since I am a scenario expert
rather than a climate expert, await reactions from people more expert in the
area of climate modelling, like Sarah, Mike and Tim, and
Martin himself as chair of the TGCIA."
A scenario expert is one who defines the step
required to achieve a result. This is usually a belief, opinion, view or
perspective.
2001
September 10: From: Ed Cook To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: the real message
"I've been fielding a whole raft of questions, comments, and criticisms
from Michael E. Mann, Tom Crowley, and Malcolm Hughes. Some of them useful, many of
them tiresome or besides the point. I never wanted to get involved in this
quixotic game of producing the next great NH temperature reconstruction
because of the professional politics and sensitivities involved. All I wanted
to do was demonstate with
Jan that Broecker was wrong, something that you have obviously done a few
times before but in journals that Broecker and others don't follow closely (I
guess. I should also say that the amount of ignorance about tree rings in the
global change/paleo/modeling community is staggering given what has been
published. Like it or not, they simply don't read our papers.). In so doing,
it seemed reasonable to compare the RCS chronology against the hockey stick
because that is the series that Broecker was railing against. That is
why I didn't bother to compare the series against all the other records
produced by you, Phil Jones, and others. Jan originally did that, but I chose to
restrict the comparison to tighten the focus of the paper. More reference to
your results is clearly justified, so maybe I was wrong here. This all
reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature reconstruction
junk behind me once I get this paper submitted. It's not worth the
aggravation. However, the paper is something that I need to do for Jan. And I
still think it is a good paper. "
2001 November 10; Ken Lay of ENRON played golf with President Clinton
and "[advised] the Democratic Administration on energy."
2001 December 17: Keith
Briffa, a referee of a paper submitted to Science by Ed Cook and Jan Esper,
tells Cook: "I simply would not
like to see you write a paper that puts out a confused message with regard to
the global warming debate, leaving ambiguity as to your opinion on the
validity of the Michael E. Mann curve ("hockey stick") …."
Keith Briffa is abusing his position of power as a reviewer of the paper, making it
clear to Cook that he will block its publication if they deviate from the
"party line". He twists the knife, using personal
intimidation: "I would not
like this affair to ruin my Christmas, as it surely will if it is the cause of
our falling out."
In other words, change the paper, or you are no longer a friend and colleague.
Finally, he lays down his expectations: "I am totally confident
that after a day’s rephrasing this paper can go back and be publishable to
my satisfaction by Science."
2001 December 25: The Clinton-Gore Administration Supported Enron's Agenda To Deregulate Electricity. "Closer to home, deregulation of the electric-power industry tops the company's domestic political agenda. A Regulatory Change By The Clinton-Gore Administration Transformed Enron. "Key orders by FERC in 1996 also supported Enron's transformation into a freewheeling trader of gas, electricity and more exotic products, such as telecommunications services and sulfur-dioxide emissions credits. The new rules ensured that Enron and other merchant companies could buy electricity from independent power plants and sell it to distant customers, using transmission lines borrowed from utility companies."
2001
The (OISM) Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine circulated an OISM
petition commonly called the Oregon Petition that reads as follows:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming
agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other
similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the
health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon
dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the
foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific
evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial
effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
This petition was circulated in 1999-2001 and again in 2007-2008 and over
31,000 scientists have signed the petition
See 1999 for the founder Frederick Seitz (1911-2008) a physicist.
2002 Robert T. Watson second Chairman of IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 1997 to 2002, . Watson is currently Chief Scientist at the UK’s Department for the Environment. He is Strategic Director for the Tyndall Center at the University of East Anglia. He admitted he never really read any of the IPCC reports so couldn't uncover the Climate-Gate frauds. Yet he was involved and still is as a Global Warming advocate. If he didn't read the science how can he say it's rock solid. He came across in his BBC video of February 9, 2010 as a buffoon.
He is Strategic Director for the Tyndall Center at the University of East Anglia and Chief Scientific Advisor for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
2002
January 13; "[Ken] Lay contributed $11,000 to former President Bill
Clinton during his two campaigns; Vice President Al Gore got $13,750 from
Enron in the 2000 election. During Clinton's eight years in office, the
company and Lay contributed about
$900,000 to the Democratic Party."
2002 January 31; Enron Said The Final Gore Global Warming Treaty Was
"Another Victory For Us."
An internal Enron memo about the Kyoto Protocol said, '"[i]f implemented,
this agreement will do more to promote Enron's business than will almost any
other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural
gas industries in Europe and the United States. . . This agreement will be
good for Enron stock!!' Drafted by Enron's Kyoto emissary immediately upon his
return from Japan, it praises individual Kyoto features with 'we won,'
'another victory for us,' and 'exactly what I have been lobbying for.'"
2002 February 18: The New York Times, which is a pro Global Warming News media reported "The Enron Corporation quietly drew up a plan to cultivate close political ties to Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential race and tried to build relationships with Michael E. Mann this inner circle . . . . In May 2000, shortly after Mr. Gore was assured of the Democratic nomination, Enron hired Sally A. Painter, a public relations executive, who drafted a 'six-month action plan for Enron' for 'Democratic political outreach in the 2000 presidential election,' the documents show." "Ms. Painter identified influential advisers at the Gore headquarters in Nashville and in Washington whom she said Enron officials should get to know. Her plan called for writing briefs for Mr. Gore's staff on issues important to Enron and for Enron to play an 'active and visible role' at the Democratic National Convention. She also suggested that Enron 'actively participate in campaign activities on the ground in a key swing state.' If Mr. Gore was elected, she said, Enron should 'participate in senior team for inaugural planning.'" Al Gore was being groomed to be the unofficial spokesperson for ENRON's Man-made Global Warming Agenda.
2002
March 22: Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn
issued a comment on the paper by Ed Cook and Jan Esper published in Science.
Both papers question the work of Michael E. Mann
and coworkers. Michael E. Mann
admonishes
all of them, copying the email to two staff of The American Association for
the Advancement of Science:
Michael E. Mann
says "Sadly, your piece on the Esper and Cook paper is
more flawed than even the paper itself. Ed, the Associated Press release that
appeared in the papers was even worse. Apparently you allowed yourself to be
quoted saying things that are inconsistent with what you told me you had said.
You three all should have known better. … In the meantime, there is a lot of
damage control that needs to be done and, in my opinion, you’ve done a
disservice to the honest discussions we had all had in the past, because you’ve
misrepresented the evidence. Many of us are very concerned with how Science
dropped the ball as far as the review process on this paper was concerned.
This never should have been published in Science, for the reasons I outlined
before (and have attached for those of you who haven’t seen them). I have to
wonder why the functioning of the review process broke down so overtly
here."
Keith Briffa replies, refuting
Michael E. Mann’s insinuations and rebuffing his
intimidations:
"Given the list of people to
whom you have chosen to circulate your message(s), we thought we should make a
short, somewhat formal, response here. I am happy to reserve my informal
response until we are face to face! Finally, we have to say that we do
not feel constrained in what we say to the media or write in the scientific or
popular press, by what the sceptics will say or do with our results. We can
only strive to do our best and address the issues honestly. Some "sceptics"
have their own dishonest agenda—we have no doubt of that. If you believe
that I, or Tim, have any other objective but to be open and honest about the
uncertainties in the climate change debate, then I am disappointed in you
also."
Michael E. Mann is demonstrating his need to be the unchallenged leader of the team, and
his annoyance with anyone who does not toe his line. Michael E. Mann
would start a campaign
to try to remove Keith Briffa from a position of authority..
2002
March 23: From: "Raymond S. Bradley" To: drdendro, Keith Briffa, t.osborn
Subject: Op-Ed
"I just waded through all the correspondence with Mike re the Science
paper and Keef's commentary. I wish to disassociate myself with Mike's
comments, or at least the tone of them. I do not consider myself the
final arbiter of what Science should publish, nor do I consider what you did
to signify the end of civilization as we know it. Life goes on--now we
have another working hypothesis to examine. Great...one of these days
we'll really know what happened....until then, I find all these efforts to be
really interesting. That's not to say I agree with everything you said
or did, but then I don't suppose you are too enamoured of what I've done in
the past either. C'est la vie." Raymond S. Bradley
Distinguished Professor and Head of Department Department of Geosciences
University of Massachusetts.
2002 April . At that time the IPCC Bureau asked Dr.Richard Moss (USA) to assume acting chairmanship of the IPCC Group
2002
April 22: From: Mike Hulme To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: IPCC Chair Vote] Cc: s.raper
"Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the
CC issue is more important for the South than for the North. Watson has
perhaps thrown his weight about too much in the past. The science is
well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why not get an engineer/economist
since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and
money, than natural science. If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and
pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable but to be honest is anyone really
surprised? All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are
deeply political (witness DEFRA's support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII
nomination)."
2002 June 17: Keith Briffa of (CRO) wrote to Dr Edward Cook about a letter involving Esper and Michael E. Mann, “I have just read this letter - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Michael E. Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage (sic) he has produced over the last few years, and ... (better say no more)”Cook responds; “We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon (reconstruction), particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff…. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”
2002 November 13: "Ronald M. Lanner"
To: ITRDBFOR
Subject: The Great Controversy
Reply-to: grissino
"Since I am neither a dendrochronologist nor a tree physiologist, I have
a different take on this little brushfire we have going. I find it
frustrating that some dendrochronologists stubbornly see tree ring
characteristics as being affected by climate. They are not. They are affected
by cambial activity. Cambial activity is affected by internalities of tree
behavior, mainly hormonal and nutrient fluxes in the crown. Those things are
largely influenced by climatic factors. So there is quite a bit of slack
between the climatic factor and the ring characteristic. Is this just
negligible static? I doubt it. I see this as an oversight by
dendrochronologists that weakens their credibility a tad among those
knowledgable about tree growth. I also have a quarrel with the dogma of
dendrochology that the cambium changes as the tree becomes senescent. I know
of no data that trees senesce -- that is, that they undergo changes due solely
to aging. This started as forestry dogma, and was accepted by tree-ringers,
who then corrected for it. I'm practically the only one who has systematically
looked for evidence of senescence (with a Ph.D. student), and we could not
find any in young to ancient bristlecones. But tree physiologists do not
generally look at such issues because they have become progressively more
reductionist. Nor do they try to produce a theory of tree
growth based, as it must be, on evolutionary theory."
Some suggest little is known about wood formation on a cellular
level.
2003 IPCC showed a sea-level increase of 2.3 mm per year, where as previously
the same data showed no rise. On examination they had just altered the
data by using a correction factor in the program to create a rise. The
hockey Stick concept for sea-level. Dr. Nils-Axel Morner said
"I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a
measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t
say what really happened. And they (IPCC) answered, that we had to do it,
because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!" When asked
to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports he was
"astonished to find that not one of the 22 contributing authors on sea
levels was a specialist." The IPCC's satellite-based evidence
showed no upward trend in sea level so they used an increase of 2.3mm in one
Hong Kong tide-gage to adjust the entire global sea level by 2.3mm. Most
scientists knew the Hong Kong tide-gage was measuring land falling relative to
sea level, science 101.
2003 Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman introduced the first-ever climate bill to the American Senate. It is a Cap-and-Trade Derivative system titled The Climate Stewardship Act. Senator John Kerry said failure to pass the Cap-and-Trade Derivative bill would be comparable to another 9/11. He also blamed tornadoes on global warming. It was introduced and voted down in 2003 and again in 2005.
2003,Two Harvard-Smithsonian
Professors, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published a peer-reviewed paper
in the scientific journal Climate Research (March 11, 2003) which identified
solar activity as a major influence on Earth's climate. This paper also
concluded that the twentieth century was not the warmest, nor was it the
century with the most extreme weather over the past thousand years. These two
scientists reviewed more than two hundred sources of data. The paper
specifically examined climate variations observed to coincide with solar
variations. One of the more notable correlations cited in this paper is the
well-documented coincidence of the Little Ice Age and a solar quiet period
from A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1900. Soon and Baliunas asserted that the lack of solar
activity resulted in cooler temperatures across the globe. The evidence they
compiled also indicated that as the sun became more active global temperatures
began to rise and the Little Ice Age ended. The Climate-Gang would
attack these two people, relentlessly.
In the past, the issue of the solar connection has always fallen down on one
question; what is it about sunspots that cause a change in the climate? Soon
and Baliunas identified the physical connection as solar wind, which varies on
an eleven-year cycle similar to sunspots'. The solar wind is made up of
high-energy particulate radiation and when strong enough, it has a visible
effect upon the atmosphere in the form of auroral displays in the polar
regions (e.g., the Northern Lights).
What is also notable is that Soon's and Baliunas's references were the very
same data that the Jones/Mann Gang had reviewed and suppressed. The data in
question is known as proxy data. Proxy data is data compiled from tree rings,
sediments, and ice cores, as well as other indirectly measured estimates of
temperature. Correlating an accurate timeline for these data sets across the
globe is supremely difficult, but these proxy data sources were beginning to
indicate a cycle or signal which might expedite the process. This signal was
thought by some in the Jones'/Mann Gang to be a solar cycle.
This must be suppressed at all cost, as it violates the 'Prime Directive', 'Global Warming caused by Mankind' and 'Billions of Grant Money'.
2003 January 28: From: "Michael E. Mann" To:
Ulrich Cubasch
Subject: Re: multiproxy
Cc: Tim Osborne , Keith Briffa , Irina Fast , Scott Rutherford , Michael E. Mann
"That's fine--you can go ahead and use it. But I have to issue a number
of caveats first. This is a version we gave Tim Osborne when he was
visiting here, and since Tim hasn't used it, and we haven't compared results
from that code w/ our published results, I can't vouch
for it--it may or may not be the exact same version we ultimately used, and it
may or may not run properly on platforms other than the one I was using (Sun
running ultrix). Scott Rutherford (whom I've cc'd on this email) has worked
with the code more frequently. The code is not very user friendly
unfortunately. For example, the determination of the optimal subset of PCs to
retain is based on application of the criterion described in our paper, which
involves running the code many times w/ different choices. So the
"iterative" process has to be performed by brute force. That
having been said, we have essentially abandoned that method now in favor of a
somewhat more sophisticated version of the approach, which makes use of
the RegEM method for imputing missing values of a field described by Schneider
(J. Climate, 2000). "
Sounds like hide the code with hide the decline?
2003
February 5: Irina Fast wrote:
I am a PhD student at the Free University in Berlin in the framework of
the EU-Project SOAP. At the SOAP's start-up meeting it was proposed to
use your multiproxy calibration method (published in 1998) for the joint
analysis of model simulations and proxydata.
Because your method was essential improved since 1998 I would like to know if
you kann provide us with your program code."
"Michael E. Mann" wrote To:
Irina Fast
Cc: Scott Rutherford , Zhang , Michael E. Mann, Tim Osborne , Keith Briffa ,
Irina Fast , mhughes, rbradley
"The code we used in Mann/Bradley/Hughes 1998 was not changed or
"improved", but there may be different versions of the code
floating around, and in a previous email to Uli Cubasch, I indicated that
I was not sure the version you have (from Tim Osborn), is identifical to the
version we used in our original paper (it would require some work on my part
to insure it gives precisely the same results, and I don't have the time to do
that). I suspect, however, that the code is the same as the one we used in our
paper and any differences, if they exist, should be minor (as long as the code
compiles and runs correctly on the platform you have--the possible
platform-dependence of fortran is a potential cause for concern here)."
A number of things are noted, many different copies of code are floating
around so if they get a different answer then they obviously got the wrong
code. He is also too busy to find the correct code and he tells dear
world so they will not ask. Later you will read him complain other
auditors are using the wrong code when they test the code.
2003 March 11; Michael E. Mann of, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts wrote Phil Jones director of East Anglia’s CRU centre “This was the danger of always criticizing [sic] the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage out colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Michael E. Mann contends that climate-change skeptics had hijacked the Climate Research Journal. The Climate Research article argued that the 20th century was not the warmest period of the Millennium. In 2009 three editors of Climate Research have resigned and the peer-review process is being investigated.
Michael E. Mann of, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts wrote I did this knowing that Phil Jones of (CRU) Climate Research Unit and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this core for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people. Realclimate.org appears to be controlled by Michael E. Mann and Gavin as he says Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen. We can hold up comments in the queue.
2003 March 11: A paper
by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published by Climate
Research, which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the
warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."
Phil Jones writes a number of emails to his colleagues. In the first:
Phil Jones writes "Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to
ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it
yet. It results from this journal having a number of 29
editors. The responsible one for this is
a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by
(skeptics) Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von
Storch about this, but got nowhere." His conclusions are
remarkable, given that he admits that he hasn’t even looked at the paper as
yet. His next email is sent after having read a small amount:
Phil Jones writes: "I looked briefly at the paper last night
and it is appalling … I’ll have time to read more at the weekend …The
phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they
get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does."
In other words, because these astrophysicists don’t use the mathematically
and statistically incorrect method of "averaging" the various
temperature proxies to hide the variability of temperature in the past, they’re
not a member of the club!
Phil Jones continues: : "Writing this I am becoming more convinced
we should do something …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. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board,
but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch."
Recall, this action is being taken before he has even read the whole paper
even a single time.
Michael E. Mann replies: "The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t
have cleared a "legitimate" peer review process anywhere. That
leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at Climate Research
has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t
just De Freitas; unfortunately, I think this group also includes a member of
my own department… The skeptics appear to have staged a "coup" at
Climate Research (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a
mediocre journal with a definite "purpose")."
In other words, the publication of a single paper critical of their work—which
is how any healthy discipline of science is supposed to work—is,
automatically, evidence of a "hijacking" of an entire peer-reviewed
journal.
Michael E. Mann urges his
colleagues to start a witch-hunt:
"Folks
might want to check out the editors and review editors: link to a page on
Climate Research’s website listing the editors"
Despite the paper having barely been looked at, Mann immediately starts to
plan their retribution:
Michael E. Mann writes
"I told Mike MacCracken that I believed
our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they
wanted—the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about
that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper,
which will be ignored by the community on the whole…It is pretty clear that
the skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a
number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd
individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic
himself), and with Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful
personality promoting their new vision. There have been several papers
by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon and Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get
published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always
criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed
literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a
journal!"
We now see what Michael E. Mann and colleagues are so upset about: they believed that
their cosy club was safe from intruders, as the only way to challenge them was
to be published in a "peer-reviewed" journal—which they themselves
controlled. But now that the fortifications were breached, the entire house of
cards was in danger of falling down.
Michael E. Mann immediately suggests black-balling the journal that dared to challenge
their authority:
Michael E. Mann writes:
"So what do we do about this? I think we
have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed
journal. 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…"
So it’s OK for their Climate-Gate Gang to control the "peer
review" process, but not OK for sceptics to have any say?
2003 March 11:
Michael E. Mann writes: "I do …
think there is a particular problem with Climate Research. This is where my
colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two closest
colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I promise
you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think there is a bigger
problem with the "messenger" in this case…"
Phil Jones replies: "Can we
not address the misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for
the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period and redefining what we think the
terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper, it should carry a lot
of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being
done over the next few years.
Using their weight of numbers to "redefine" these historical periods? Is this the genesis of the Wikipedia censorship scandal?
2003 March 12: Remarkably,
this was exactly what Soon and Baliunas published in their Climate
Research paper. Here, ice cores are more valuable (CO2, CH4 and
volcanic aerosol changes). But the main external candidate is solar, and more
work is required to improve the "paleo" solar forcing record and to
understand how the climate system responds both globally and regionally to
solar forcing.
Dr. Rutherford does not go head-to-head with the data presented in the Climate
Research paper, but he seemingly wishes to "cook" other data to
counter the honest work of Soon and Baliunas, as stated by the following:
First, I'd be willing to handle the data and the plotting/mapping. Second,
regarding Mike's suggestions, if we use different reference periods for the
reconstructions and the models we need to be extremely careful about the
differences. Not having seen what this will look like, I suggest that we start
with the same instrumental reference period for both (1xxx xxxx xxxx). If you
are willing to send me your series please send the raw (i.e. unfiltered)
series. That way I can treat them all the same. We can then decide how we want
to display the results. there is nothing we can do about them aside from
continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia
hit)
2003
March 27; From: Earth Government (Germain Dufour, President)
Subject: Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:05:07 -0800
Press release from Earth Government and April Newsletter
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Formation of Earth Government for the good of all
"Earth has long been waiting for a truly global governing body based on
universal values, human rights, global concepts and democracy. Earth
Government might as well be created now, there is no longer any reason to
wait. We are the Earth Community, and we will form the Earth Government. Earth
management is a priority and is a duty by every responsible person. A
democratically elected Earth Government will now be formed, and we want you to
reflect on future effects of such an event on the history of humanity.
Certainly one will expect extraordinary changes: a reorganizing of human
activities all over the planet; participation by all societies on the planet
in solving local and global problems; new alliances forming; north meeting
with south (eradication of poverty will be the price to pay to get votes from
the south) in order to gather more votes within the newly created Earth
Government to satisfy power struggles between European, Asian and Western
countries; adoption of democratic principles, human and Earth rights, global
concepts, and universal values by every human being; expansion of
consciousness; gathering and coordinating of forces to resolve social and
political problems in a peaceful way (no more conflicts or wars); gathering
and coordinating of forces (technologies, scientific research, exploration
work, human resources, etc.) to resolve global problems such as global
climate, environment, availability of resources, poverty, employment, etc.
Thousands more changes!" This was found among the Climate-Gate
emails.
A call for a return to the ancient religion of "Mother Earth" and "God the Sun".
2003 April 23: Tom
Wigley writes to a large number of recipients, building on the idea that every
critical or skeptical paper published in the peer-reviewed literature must be
due to a "conspiracy of skeptics":
Danny Harvey and I refereed a paper by skeptic Pat Michaels and coworkers and
said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (de Freitas again!) and
he responded, saying:
"The manuscript 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 manuscript 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."
Again, Tom Wigley perpetuates the arrogant myth that this small club of
Climate-Gate scientists should have the right to interfere with, and
ultimately veto, the review and publication process for each and every paper
published in their field. Such censorship is not how a healthy discipline of
science operates; indeed, any discipline that operates in this manner is not
"science" at all, but mere religious dogma.
Tom Wigley continues: " I suspect that de Freitas 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 genuine 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 peer review
process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult."
This is a damning admission by Tom Wigley: he acknowledges that these skeptics
have impeccable scientific credentials; the only reason that they should be
banned from reviewing papers for journal publication is that they don’t buy
into their dogma of global warming! This email dispels any doubt that this
cosy club redefined "peers" to mean "scientists who agree with
us"—which makes a mockery of the entire idea of "peer
review". The ultimate irony in all this, of course, is that
skepticism is not a scientific insult, but rather an essential tenet of the
scientific method. Only fundamentalist theological debates brand skepticism a
heresy.
2003 April 24: Tim
Carter, research professor at the Finnish Environment Institute, suggests to
Tom Wigley a way of ensuring that no papers get published without their
ability to veto:
Tim Carter writes: "On the Climate Research issue … I
wonder if a review of the refereeing policy is in order. The only way I can
think of would be for all papers to go through two Editors rather than one,
the former to have overall responsibility, the latter to provide a second
opinion on a paper and reviewers’ comments prior to publication. A General
Editor would be needed to adjudicate in the event of disagreement. Of course,
this could then slow down the review process enormously. However, without an
editorial board to vote someone off, how can suspect Editors be removed except
by the Publisher (in this case, Inter-Research, the publishers of Climate
Research).
Tom Wigley replies: "Re
Climate Research, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication
of crap science "in order to stimulate debate". One approach is to
go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is
perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise
of refereed work. I use the word "perceived" here, since whether it
is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal
is seen by the community that counts."
In other words, Tom Wigley is unambiguously advocating a "smear
campaign" against the journal. I have no doubt that the key phrase,
"whether it is true or not", will be a key piece of evidence in
Wigley’s trial.
Tom Wigley continues: :I think we could
get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter—50+
people. Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones.
Mike’s idea to get the editorial board members to resign will probably not
work—we must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise the holes will eventually
fill up with people (skeptics) like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels,
Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch,
so the above approach might remove that hurdle too." This is
science at its finest hour.
2003
April 29: From: Keith Briffa To: Edward Cook
"Can I just say that I am not in the MBH (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) camp - if
that be characterized by an unshakable "belief" one way or the other
, regarding the absolute magnitude of the global MWP (Medieval Warming Period)
. I certainly believe the " medieval" period was warmer than the
18th century - the equivalence of the warmth in the post 1900 period, and the
post 1980s ,compared to the circa Medieval times is very much still an
area for much better resolution. I think that the geographic / seasonal biases
and dating/response time issues still cloud the picture of when and how warm
the Medieval period was . On present evidence , even with such uncertainties I
would still come out favouring the "likely unprecedented recent
warmth" opinion - but our motivation is to further explore the degree of
certainty in this belief - based on the
realistic interpretation of available data."
Edward Cook wrote: "Bradley still regards the MWP as
"mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest
pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other
members of the MBH (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) camp have a fundamental dislike for
the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting
out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only
"half-empty"; it is emonstrably "broken". I come more from
the "cup half-full" camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe
no, but it is too early to say what it
is. Being a natural skeptic, I guess you might lean more towards the MBH
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes) camp, which is fine as long as one is honest and open
about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts about the MBH
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes) camp). We can always politely(?) disagree given the same
admittedly equivocal evidence."
2003 April 24; Michael E. Mann
responds to Tom Wigley’s suggestions, again highlighting the fact that
the politics is more important than the science:
Michael E. Mann
said "This might all seem laughable, if it weren’t the
case that they’ve gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science &
Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is in
charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this appropriately, but not
without some external pressure)."
So, the Climate-Gate conspirators are fortunate to even have a man on the
ground in the White House itself.
Michael E. Mann continues:
:Here,
I tend to concur at least in spirit … that other approaches may be
necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique
aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special
concern. This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a
vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often vicious and
personal) under the guise of apparently legitimately reviewed science,
allowing them to make use of the "Harvard" moniker in the process.
Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the story (mostly it has
appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his crowd, and dubious fringe on-line
outlets). Much like a server which has been compromised as a launching point
for computer viruses, I fear that Climate Research has become a hopelessly
compromised vehicle in the skeptics’ (can we find a better word?)
disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I’ve seen (e.g. a
potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of the
Climate Research editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential
merit."
Michael E. Mann continues to engineer the "spin-doctoring" of this retaliation:
"This should be justified not on
the basis of the publication of science we may not like, of course, but based
on the evidence (e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey, and I’m sure
there is much more) that a legitimate peer-review process has not been
followed by at least one particular editor."
Mark Eakin adds: "Since the
White House has shown interest in this paper, the Office of Science &
Technology Policy really does need to receive a measured, critical discussion
of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’s methods. I agree with Tom that a noted group
… such as Michael E. Mann, Crowley, Keith Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead
such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. This would provide
Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide the White House with the
needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss this paper for the slipshod
work that it is."
"Ammunition" it is, indeed—for an attempted character
assassination. Michael E. Mann confirms that he has supplied this
"ammunition" to their man in the White House
:Michael E. Mann writes: "Indeed, I
have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the offending
paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed with specifics as he confronts
the issue within the Office of Science & Technology Policy. He may have
gotten additional comments from other individuals as well—I’m not sure. I
believe that the matter is in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and
see what happens."
Tom
Wigley director of (CRU) Climate Research Unit said
“Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not
work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill
up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.”
The Climate-Gate spin doctors have kept the sciences issues out of the the mainstream media even into 2010.
2003 June 4: Ed Cook writes to Keith
Briffa: "Now something to ask from
you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to
the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written
by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of
mathematics that we use in our field (reverse regression) is wrong, biased,
lousy, horrible, etc. They use your … reconstruction as the main whipping
boy."
We now get another glimpse into the impeccable data storage and record-keeping
procedures of these "scientists":
Ed Cook continues: "I
have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is
part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect
the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their
claims.
Ed Cook continues: "If
published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly
paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of filter theory
stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics
appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem
of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved
inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do
lots of computer stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the
deficiencies of our way of doing things, but never actually show how their
method would change your reconstruction from what you produced. Your
assistance here is greatly appreciated."
2003
June 4: Telegraph Group Limited 2003 article by Robert Matthews,
Science Correspondent as distributed by "Michael E. Mann" to
associates on October 2, 2003.
"Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented"
global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that
the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages. From the outset of the
global warming debate in the late 1980s,
environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster
than ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases
from cars and power stations are causing these "record-breaking"
global temperatures.
Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that
global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and
added: "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is
here and it's accelerating." This announcement followed research
published in 1998, when scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s had been hotter than any
other period for 1,000 years.
Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study
yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240
scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest
over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in
stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.
The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the
findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as
tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to
estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between
the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher
even than today. They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in
around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world
has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of
the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms
suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the
result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.
The study, about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment, has
been welcomed by sceptics of global warming, who say it puts the claims of
environmentalists in proper context. Until now, suggestions that the Middle
Ages were as warm as the 21st century had been largely anecdotal and were
often challenged by believers in man-made global warming.
Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of
London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the
discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history."
According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was
a wonderful period of plenty for everyone."
In contrast, said Prof Stott, severe famines and economic collapse followed
the onset of the Little Ice Age around 1300. He said: "When the
temperature started to drop, harvests failed and England's vine industry died.
It makes one wonder why there is so much fear of warmth."
The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
official voice of global warming research, has conceded the possibility that
today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused
by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While
the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues
to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.
Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological
Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the
IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the
significance of existing warming.
Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual
relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon.
This is not the conclusion of IPCC." He added that there were also
doubts about the reliability of
temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the
recent warming of the last 50 years," he said."
2003 Summer Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of Canada, after many efforts finally published a paper titled “Corrections to the Michael E. Mann et al Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series.” This paper undermined the “Hockey Stick” graphic and loss of the (MWP) Medieval Warm Period completely destroying the IPCC position of Man Made Climate Warming. The anti-skeptic campaign switched into overdrive. They would smear Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, prevent publications of the work of skeptics, manipulate the peer-review process and isolate all skeptics as stupid cranks.
2003 July U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, concluded a long speech when he said “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.”
2003 July 23: The
Director of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, investigated the complaints about
the editorial and refereeing process, and wrote: "In my 20 June
2003 email to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask Climate
Research editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’
evaluations for the two Soon and coworker papers. I have received and
studied the material requested.
Conclusions:
1) The reviewers consulted (four for each manuscript) by the editor presented
detailed, critical and helpful evaluations.
2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate
revisions.
3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
Summary:
Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor."
Mike Hulme forwards this email to Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, and Michael E. Mann: "So, this would seem to be
the end of the matter as far as Climate Research is concerned."
Mike Mann is not willing to let
it go at that: "It seems to me that
this "Kinne" character’s words are disingenuous, and probably
supports what de Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above
him. I think that the community should, as Mike Hulme has previously suggested
in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels—reviewing,
editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and
disrepute."
Tom Wigley realizes that such tactics amount to scientific
blackmail: "I agree that
Kinne seems like he could be a de Freitas clone. However, what would be our
legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell people to avoid the
journal?"
Benjamin D. Santer has no such qualms: "Based
on Kinne’s editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial
decision-making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually
publish a rebuttal to the Douglass and coworkers paper. We’ll publish this
rebuttal in the Journal of Geophysical Research—not in Climate
Research."
2003 July 22: From: Jonathan Overpeck To:
"Michael E. Mann"
Subject: letter to Senate
Re: letter to various members of the U.S. Senate
Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm
Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@virginia.edu, jto, omichael, Tim Osborn , Kevin
Trenberth , Tom Wigley
"I'm not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign - at least
not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is
unprecedented and political, and that worries me.
"My vote would be that we don't do this without a careful discussion
first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org
to do this - e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it's
called) on global climate change.
Think about the next step - someone sends another letter to the Senators, then
we respond, then...
I'm not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU
etc to do it.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a
special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other political
actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I'd advise against doing anything with
out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support."
2003 July 23: From: Tom Wigley To: Michael
Oppenheimer
Subject: Re: letter to Senate
Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , "Michael E. Mann" , Caspar M Ammann ,
Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones ,
Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Benjamin D. Santer , Steve Schneider
"What is worrying is the way this BS paper has been hyped by various
groups. The publicity has meant that the work has entered the
conciousness of people in Congress, and is given prominence in some
publications emanating from that sector. The work appears to have the
imprimateur of Harvard, which gives it added credibility. I do not think
it is enough to speak as individuals or even as a group of recognized experts.
Even as a group, we will not be seen as having the 'power' of the Harvard
stamp of approval.
What I think is necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU and AMS.
It would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves from the work.
Most importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into the picture. With
these 4 institutions, together with us (and others) as experts, pointing out
clearly that the work is scientific rubbish, we can certainly win this battle.
The only way to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can muster.
The Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS (even above IPCC)
as a final authority, so I think we should actively pursue this path."
2003 July 28: Senator James Mountain Inhofe b-1934
stated "I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic Global
Warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work
of the nation's top climate scientists."
2003 July 31: Tim Osborn writes to Mike
Mann, trying to make sense of some of Mann’s data, which appears to have
simplistic estimates of uncertainties. After an exchange in which Mann
attempts to explain what he has done, he adds:
Mike Mann writes: "Tim,
Attached are the calculations requested …p.s. I know I probably don’t need
to mention this, but just to ensure absolutely clarity on this, I’m
providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague.
So please don’t pass this along to others without checking with me first. This
is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn’t want to fall into
the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…"
In other words, Mann lacks so much confidence in his own calculations that he
refers to them as his "dirty laundry", that is to be hidden from
scrutiny at all costs. This is science?
2003 August 19: Tom
Wigley to many, reiterating the naive arrogance that they should have absolute
veto power over any publication in any journal:
Tom Wigley writes: "I have been closely involved in the
Climate Research fiasco. I have had papers that I refereed (and soundly
rejected), under de Freitas’s editorship, appear later in the journal—without
me seeing any response from the authors. As I have said before to others, his
strategy is first to use mainly referees that are in the anti-greenhouse
community, and second, if a paper is rejected, to ignore that review and seek
another more "sympathic" reviewer. In the second case he can then
(with enough reviews) claim that the honest review was an anomalous data point
that can be ignored."
Again, Wigley’s view is so myopic that any dissenting opinion must be
"dishonest". He then has
the gall to suggest formalizing this closed-shop mentality:
Tom Wigley writes: "I agree that an ethics committee is needed and
I would be happy to serve on such a committee. It would have to have
endorsement by international societies, like the Royal Society of London for
the Improvement of Natural Knowledge, the United States National Academy of
Sciences, the Academy of Europe, plus the Royal Meteorological Society, the
American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, etc."
Now that would really provide fertile ground for institutionalized bullying
and ideological exclusion!
Tom Wigley continues: "Jim
Titus mentioned to me that in the legal profession here people are disbarred
for behavior like that of de Freitas (and even John Christy—although this is
a more subtle case). We cannot do that of course, but we can alert the
community of honest scientists to such behavior and formally discredit these
people."
How ironic that he would invoke the workings of the legal profession—to
which he and his associates will shortly be subject, for many years to come.
The Danish Academy did something like this recently, but were not entirely
successful.
Wigley joins the chorus of conspirators urging that the journal be
black-balled:
"In the meantime, I urge people to
dissociate themselves from Climate Research. The residual
"editorial" (a word I use almost tongue in cheek) board is looking
like a rogues’ gallery of skeptics. Those remaining who are credible
scientists should resign."
The Climate-Gate Gang
should have their Phd's recinded.
2003 August 19: Tom Crowley realizes that the Climate-Gate gang needs
more ammunition against the astrophysicists Soon and Baliunas, who seem to
avoid the worst of their "peer group pressure" at in-bred scientific
meetings:
Tom Crowley writes: "We need some data on Soon and Baliunas.
One of my concerns is that they only publish in low-impact journals, and
completely bypass the normal give-and-take of presentations at open scientific
meetings (for example, I think I have probably heard 100 presentations overall
from the people on this mailing list)."
His implication is that, if you repeat something enough times—to a
sympathetic audience—it somehow becomes more credible. From this hypothesis,
he develops an entire line of attack on these interlopers:
Tom Crowley writes: "It is
therefore very important to inquire, for the sake of our exchanges with
reporters, legislators, etc, as to how often any of you may have heard Soon or
Baliunas give a talk in an open meeting, where they could defend their
analyses. Please respond to me as
to whether you have heard either of them present something on their climate
analyses (I think I heard Baliunas speak once on her astrophysics work, but
that doesn’t count). I will let you know the results of the poll so
that we may all be on the same grounds with respect to the data, and reporting
such information to press inquiries, legislators, etc."
Tom Wigley proposes a tactic that is pure disinformation: "Might
be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually, are
cited (as astronomers). Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps
we could start referring to them as "astrologers" (excusable as …
"oops, just a typo")."
Michael E. Mann recommends counting citations ("my count is bigger than
yours")—a practice that is meaningless when the members of a small
discipline repeatedly cite each other’s papers:
Michael E. Mann writes: "I checked this out prior to my United
States Senate hearing. Their science citations in the climate literature are
poor, as one would hope and expect. Interestingly, they both drop their second
initials when publishing in the climate literature so that their names don’t
turn in up in the citation index if you do a search on their publications in
the astronomy literature (which use the full initials)—apparently, they don’t
want their astronomy colleagues to be aware that they’re moonlighting as
supposed climatologists…"
Michael E. Mann
is forced to acknowledge that his research into their
publication record is disheartening:
Michael E. Mann writes: "Their numbers are better in the astronomy
literature, though Soon’s numbers even here are mediocre. Baliunas had
some well-cited publications more than a decade ago. This is her work on the
use of sun-like stars as a model for solar variability, etc., which is well
referenced in the astrophysics community. However, most of these appear to be
her Ph.D. work, and appear to have been published with her Ph.D.
adviser".
Which is, of course, absolutely standard practice—and indicates that her
Ph.D. work was both original and useful to the astrophysics community.
Michael E. Mann continues: "Not much evidence however that she has
made any useful, independent contribution since then. There are some
additional papers she’s published on time series analysis of solar signals—looks
like the kind of stuff you might expect to see from a graduate student
first-year research project…"
This is the ultimate irony, given that Mann and his colleagues demonstrated
their absolute ineptitude in this very area of mathematics—called "time
series analysis"—that is needed to properly understand their
temperature proxy data. Mann now suggests that they
"cherry-pick" their citation record to give the misleading
impression of a low citation count, by ignoring their publications in
astrophysics:
Michael E. Mann
continues: "In my opinion, it would be a
mistake to evaluate these on their citations numbers in astronomy. We should
focus on their numbers in the climate literature, which are the only ones
relevant when discussing the issue of how their work on climate is received by
their fellow scientists."
Michael E. Mann comes across as a simpleton.
2003 September 3: From: Dr. Edward Cook To: Keith
Briffa
Subject: An idea to pass by you
"After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as
described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley's follow-up
talk on how everybody but him has fucked up in reconstructing past NH
temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an overstatement on my
part I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is really quite
nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want you to be
involved in. Consider the tentative title:
"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are The
Greatest Uncertainties?"
Authors: Cook, Keith Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D'Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones (??),
Michael E. Mann (infinite?) - I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too
personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is probably
the worst paper Phil Jones has ever been involved in - Bradley
hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can
contribute without just defending their past work - this is the
key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table and
don't start by assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than any other.
Here are my ideas for the paper in a nutshell (please bear with me):
1) Describe the past work (Michael E. Mann, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, Crowley, Esper, yada, yada,
yada) and their data over-laps.
2) Use the Keith Briffa & Osborn "Blowing Hot And Cold"
annually-resolved recons (plus Crowley?) (boreholes not included) for
comparison because they are all scaled identically to the same NH
extra-tropics temperatures and the Michael E. Mann version only includes that part of the
NH (we could include Michael E. Mann's full NH recon as well, but he would probably go ballistic, and also the new Mann
&Jones mess?)
3) Characterize the similarities between series using unrotated (maybe rotated
as well) EOF analysis (correlation for pure
similarity, covariance for differences in amplitude as well) and filtering on
the reconstructions - unfiltered, 20yr high-pass, 100-20
bandpass, 100 lowpass - to find out where the reconstructions are most similar
and different - use 1st-EOF loadings as a guide, the
comparisons of the power spectra could also be done I suppose
4) Do these EOF analyses on different time periods to see where they differ
most, e.g., running 100-year EOF windows on the unfiltered data, running
300-year for 20-lp data (something like that anyway), and plot the 1st-EOF
loadings as a function of time
5) Discuss where the biggest differences lie between reconstructions (this
will almost certainly occur most in the 100 lowpass data),
taking into account data overlaps
6) Point out implications concerning the next IPCC assessment and EBM forcing
experiments that are basically designed to fit the lower frequencies - if the
greatest uncertainties are in the >100 year band, then that is where the
greatest uncertainties will be in the
forcing experiments
7) Publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think
I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH
temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the
>100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with
certainty that we know fuck-all).
Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of seasonality
of response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an
empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH reconstructions because many of
the same tree-ring proxies get used in both seasonal and annual recons anyway.
So all I care about is how the recons differ and where they differ most in
frequency and time without any direct consideration of their TRUE association
with observed temperatures.
I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done before the
next IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has
to have a reasonably broad spectrum of authors to avoid looking like a biased
attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.
If you don't want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole idea like a
hot potato. I honestly don't want to do it without your
participation. If you want to be the lead on it, I am fine with that too."
--- A breath of fresh air! I am impressed ---
Dr. Edward Cook. Phd, Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-ring
Laboratory Lamont-Doherthy Earth Observatory, Palisales, N.Y.
2003 October 3: Robert Matthews wrote: Michael E.
Mann
"I'm putting together a piece on global warming, and I'll be making
reference to your paper in Geophysical Research Letters with Prof Jones on
"Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia".
When the paper came out, some critics argued that the paper actually showed
that there have been three periods in the last 2000 years which were warmer
than today (one just prior to AD 700, one just after, and one just prior to AD
1000). They also claimed that the paper could only conclude that current
temperatures were warmer if one compared the proxy data with other data sets.
(For an example of these arguments, see: I'd be very interested to
include your rebuttals to these arguments in the piece I'm doing. I must admit
to being confused by why proxy data should be compared to instrumental data
for the last part of the data-set. Shouldn't the comparison be a consistent
one throughout ? With many thanks for your patience with this."
2003 October 8: From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Tom Wigley
Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley, Keith Briffa , tcrowley, mhughes, omichael,
t.osborn, jto, Scott Rutherford , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley , Michael E. Mann, p.jones
Tom Wigley wrote: "I agree with Kevin that any response should be
brief. On the second page of their comment, SBL quote some of the caveat
statements in their earlier papers. The irony is that they do not heed their
own caveats. If taken literally, all these proxy data problems would mean that
one can draw no conclusions about the existence or otherwise of the MWE (MWP)
or LIA as global phenomena. This is what we say (I hope -- at least I have
said this in the paper cited below) -- but our over-bold skeptics say that
these anomalous intervals *did* exist. You can't have it both ways --and
basically what BS are doing is a confidence trick. What is still needed
here is an analysis of the BS method to show that it could be used to
prove anything they wanted. I am still concerned about 'our' dependence
on treerings. Are our results really dependent on one region pre 1400 as SNL
state? Is the problem of nonclimate obfuscating factors in the 20th century
enough to screw up calibrations on moderate to long timescales? If not, we
need to state and document this clearly. Does this problem apply to both
widths and densities? Are the borehole data largely garbage? I recall a paper
of Mike's on this issue that I refereed last year -- and there was something
in GRL (I think) very recently pointing out some serious potential problems.
Finally, did we really say what SBL claim we did in their p. 1 point (2)?
Surely the primary motive for all of this paleo work is that it DOES have a
bearing on human-induced climate effects?"
Michael E. Mann wrote: "We need to come up with a short, but
powerful rebuttal. We need to focus on the key new claims, while simply
dismissing, by reference to earlier writings, the recycled ones. The Kalnay et
al paper seems to be the new darling of the contrarians, and you're precise
wording on this will be very helpful. Phil Jones, Tim and others should be
able to put to rest, in one or two sentences, the myths about urban heat bias
on the CRU record. A few words from Malcolm and Keith on the biological tree
growth effects would help too. The comments on the various paleo figures are
confusing and inconsistent, but from what I can tell, just plain wrong. I'll
draft some words on that.
Kevin Trenberth wrote: "The first page deals with comments
on proxy records and their problems. I think we should agree that there
are issues with proxy records, they are not the same as instrumental records
(which have their own problems), but they are all we have. However, some
are better than others (e.g. borehole) and annual or better resolution is
highly desirable in particular to make sure that anomalies are
synchronous. The records are not really the issue here, it is there use
(and abuse). We know from the observational record that global or
hemispheric means are typically small residuals of large anomalies of opposite
signs so that large warm spots occur simultaneously with large cold regions
(witness last winter). This fact means that we need high temporal
resolution (annual or better) AND an ability to compute hemispheric averages
based on a network. The Soon and Baliunas approach fails dismally on
both of these critical points.
Michael E. Mann wrote: "S&B have thus unwittingly, in my view,
provided us with a further opportunity to expose the most egregious of the
myths perpetuated by the contrarians (S&B have managed to cram them
all in there) in the format of a response to their comment."
2003 October 9: From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Tom Crowley
Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley, Keith Briffa , tcrowley, mhughes, omichael,
t.osborn, jto, Scott Rutherford , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley , Michael E. Mann
[it's noteworthy that Cc'ing: 'dear world' is a junior management
practice to condition, control and manipulate associates]
"My understanding of the papers from the borehole community ever since
the 1997 GRL article by Huang et al is that they no longer believe that the
data has proper sensitivity to variations prior to about AD 1500--in fact,
I don't believe anyone in that community now feels they can meaningfully go
farther back that that. Huang contributed the section on boreholes in
chapter 2 for IPCC (2001), and wrote the very words to that effect."
Tom Crowley wrote: "Hi, I don't understand why we cannot
cite the borehole data for the MWP - that in a sense is the only legitimate
data set that shows a ~1 C cooling from the MWP to the LIA - forget the
deforestation problem for the moment, that is later in time -
if the borehole data for the MWP are legitimate then there is still a case for
concluding that the MWP was significantly warmer than the LIA."
Phil Jones wrote: "A few times the tone could be a little
less antagonistic. We don't want to inflame things any further. So remove the
word laundry. fair enough. You *should* have seen the first draft I
wrote. This is quite toned down now... With the boreholes do we want to get
one of the borehole group to sign up, eg Henry Pollack? Would add a lot
of weight to the last 500 year argument. this has merit. unfortunately
though I think it might open up a hornets nest of the author list is not
identical to the original list of authors on the Eos article. Other thoughts
on this... Also, if we can't estimate temperature histories accurately,
then SB can't say it was warmer in their MWP (Medieval Warming Period) period.
They believe the 20th century instrumental data when they want to. yes,
one of a large number of amazing contradictions in their reasoning..."
These are damming statement including 'we can't
estimate temperature histories accurately' then Climate-Gate claim to MWP
being cooler than 20th century is an obvious error. You can't have it
both ways. Keep in mind if MWP is warmer than 20th century then the man
made Global Warming theory is in error.
2003 October 13: From: Tim Osborn To: "Michael
E. Mann"
Cc: Caspar Ammann , rbradley, Keith Briffa , tcrowley, mhughes, omichael, jto,
Scott Rutherford , Tom Wigley , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Kevin Trenberth
" Dear Mike and co-authors, Suggested re-wording near start of point
(2): '"clearly shows temperatures in the MWP that are as high as
those in the 20th century" is misleading because it is true for only the
early 20th century. The hemispheric warmth of the late 20th century is
anomalous in a long-term context.' (with underlining of either 'late' or 'is'
for emphasis). Of course, this suggestion needs to be checked carefully
(e.g., is it only the 'early' 20th century that is exceeded by some earlier
temperatures?). But it is an important change because it is not actually
'false' or 'untrue' if some part of the 20th century was exceeded earlier -
they don't specify which part, so their statement is (probably deliberately)
vague rather than wrong. The above suggestion simply points this out.
Related to this comment, is the question of whether the actual reconstruction
(not instrumental observations) in the late 20th century exceeds all
reconstructed values (central estimates) prior to the 20th century. My
copy of Michael E. Mann and Jones (2003) has poor quality figures, so this is hard for me
to tell. It appears that it might be true, but only right at the end -
i.e. the 1980 value of the filtered series. If it is really only at the
end, and a 40-year smoothing filter is used, then I would be concerned about
this statement appearing in the response if it depends upon applying the
filter right up to the end of the record. Doing so requires some
assumption about values past the end of the
series. This in itself is problematic, but especially so if the
assumption were that the trend was extrapolated to produce values for input to
the filter. Of course, if the straight 40-year mean from 1941-1980 of
the reconstruction exceeds all other 40-year means of the reconstruction, then
I'd be happy with the statement. I don't like point (3) on the
boreholes. It relies on the "optimal" borehole series of Michael E. Mann
et al. (2003), a result that I have some concerns about and which is being
used here to imply less uncertainty than really exists over this issue.
In the EOS paper we included this and the "non-optimal" gridded
borehole series, so we were leaving open some
uncertainty."
We need to keep in mind the 20th century data was in error, they thought 1998
was the warmest year whereas 1934 was the warmest which brings into question
the estimates of 1,000 years ago.
2003 October 13: From: Keith Briffa To: t.osborn
Subject: Fwd: minor explosion
X-Sender: esper Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 To: Keith Briffa From: Jan Esper
Subject: minor explosion Cc: Wilson Rob _dendro
"Hi Keith thank you for the message and the comments to the Siberia
draft. We are intending to finalize a draft when Rob is coming over and we go
on a sampling trip to the Bavarian Forest and E-Germany. We will then also
discuss of data-overlap issue again and might include some extra figure with
our record re-calculated (without Tornetraesk and Polar Ural).
However, I (Jan) an not sure that we should have another figure with only the Michael E. Mann
and the (reduced) Esper series. Second, it seems that Michael E. Mann used the
density records from these two sites only (not ring width). Lets see.
We would really like to send you the final draft, and ask you to become the
fourth author? We ask this not only because of the "minor
explosion" that might happen, but also because some of the arguments
in the draft were made earlier by you anyway. What do you think? Take care
Jan and Dave CC R Wilson"
Jan Esper says: "You know that in my opinion the recent
similarity in the records is driven by instrumental data inclusion (or
calibration against instrumental data) and that Michael E. Mann's earlier data are
strongly biased towards summer and northern land signals. I think you will
start a minor explosion - but that is what science needs . I looked at
your tree-line data and thought them very interesting. In my opinion the way
you directed the interpretation was what drew your criticisms . For a climate
journal you should have been pointing out the complicated regional responses
(to the temperature
record) rather than trying to state a simple overall response."
Make a few comments and you become co-author? Where do I sign up?
The small explosion is likely to come from Michael E. Mann who doesn't
tolerate criticism
.
2003 October 24: From: Tim Osborn To: evelyn.smith,
"Christopher D Miller"
Subject: Fwd: confidential assessment of GC04-203 [It is important to
remember Tim is a Climate-Gate insider]
"I now rate it "Excellent (5)" for scientific/technical
merit, and "High (5)" for importance/relevance and applicability.
One issue that I would like to raise, however, is that the need for
quantifying uncertainty/error in the reconstructions/database is not given
much coverage in the proposal. It is mentioned, but not focused on."
"Subject: confidential assessment of GC03-512 From: Tim Osborn To:
irma.dupree CC: t.osborn, christopher.d.miller
I have rated it "good" rather than "very good" or
"excellent" because it does not seem as scientifically innovative or
challenging as it might. I am very wary about the proposed approach of
integrating the data sources together to produce a single climate product.
No mention is made of using the 19th century data to consider key issues such
as difference between tree-ring and ground borehole temperatures (they differ
more in the 19th century, in terms of trend, than in other centuries),
possibly taking into account land-use change. No mention is made of
using the 19th century data to assess multi-century temperature
reconstructions and why they differ. These are issues of great
importance.
No mention is investigating seasonal dependence of temperature changes, which
are greater in existing temperature products during the 19th century than in
the 20th century and which has important implications for the calibration of
proxy (including tree-ring) data against summer or annual data and the need to
more clearly define the true seasonal response of proxy data.
The 19th century is certainly of particular importance, not just for the
reasons outlined in the proposal but also because this century shows some of
the biggest disagreements in warming trend between various quasi-hemispheric
temperature reconstructions and between proxy and instrumental data and
between different seasons of instrumental data. Additional data sources
are definitely required, and additional digitisation, homogenisation and
intercomparison of data sets is necessary. For these reasons, work such
as
that proposed here is essential for helping to refine answers to questions
such as how unusual is late twentieth century climate and detection of climate
change signals against the noise of natural climate variability."
2003 October 26: From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Ray Bradley, "Malcolm Hughes" , Mike MacCracken , Steve
Schneider , tom crowley , Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck , asocci, Michael
Oppenheimer , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Tim_Profeta, Benjamin
D. Santer
, Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , "Lonnie G. Thompson" , Kevin
Trenberth
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd: Cc: Michael E. Mann
"Dear All, This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity
will remain in confidence. Who knows what trickery has been pulled or
selective use of data made. Its clear that "Energy and
Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill for
industry.
Attachment: likely from a CRU member?
" two people have a forthcoming 'Energy & Environment' paper that's
being unveiled tomoro (monday) that -- in the words of one Cato / Marshall/
CEI type -- "will claim that Michael E. Mann arbitrarily ignored paleo data within
his own record and substituted other data for
missing values that dramatically affected his results. When his exact
analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data substitutions, two very
large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th century.
Personally, I'd offer that this was known by most people who understand Michael E. Mann's methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the
early centuries. Anyway, there's going to be a lot of noise on this one,
and knowing Michael E. Mann's very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless
he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past...."
2003 October 30; From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Keith Briffa, "raymond s. bradley" , Tim Osborn , p.jones
Subject: Re: One way out....Cc: mhughes
Keith Briffa wrote: "I agree with this idea in principle . Whatever
scientific differences and fascination with the nuances of techniques we may
/may not share, this whole process represents the most despicable example of
slander and down right deliberate perversion of the scientific process , and
bias (unverified) work being used to influence public perception and due
political process. It is , however, essential that you (we) do not get caught
up in the frenzy that these people are trying to generate, and that will more
than likely lead to error on our part or some premature remarks that we might
regret. I do think the statement re Mike's results needs making , but only
after it can be based on repeated work and in full collaboration of us all. I
am happy to push Tim to take the lead and collaborate in this - and I feel we
could get sanction very quickly from the DEFRA if needed. BUT this must be
done calmly , and in the meantime a restrained statement but out saying we
have full confidence in Mike's objectivity and independence - which we
can not say of the sceptics. In fact I am moved tomorrow to contact Nature and
urge them to do an editorial on this . The political machinations in
Washington should NOT dictate the agenda or scheduling of the work - but
some cool statement can be made saying we believe the "prats have really
fucked up someway" - and that the premature publication of their paper is
reprehensible . Much of the detail in Mikes response though is not sensible
(sorry Mike) and is rising to their bate."
Raymond said "Tim, Phil Jones, Keef: I suggest a way out of this
mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an
uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by
"for" and "against" global warming proponents.
However, if an "independent group" such as you guys at CRU could
make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an
"audit", and if they did it right, I think that would go a
long way to defusing the issue. If you are willing, a quick and forceful
statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments,
although here, at least, it is already quite out of control.....yesterday in
the US Senate the debate opened on the McCain-Lieberman bill to control CO2
emissions from power plants. Sen Inhofe stood up & showed the M
& M figure and stated that Michael E. Mann et al--& the IPCC assessment --was now
disproven and so there was no reason to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how
many times a "scientific" paper gets reported on in the Senate 3
days after it is published...."
2003 October 30: From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: "raymond s.bradley" , mhughes, "Phil Jones" , Keith
Briffa , Tim Osborn , Michael E. Mann, Scott Rutherford
Subject: Can you believe it??? [this poor science by Michael E. Mann would
dog Climate-Gate for the next 6 years]
"The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14,
751-771) claims to be an "audit" of the analysis of Michael E. Mann, Bradley
and Hughes (1998) or "MBH98". An audit involves a careful
examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used in
the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick
("MM") have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the
procedures of MBH98. It is precisely the over which the numerous
indicators were removed (pre 1600 period) during which MM reconstruct
anomalous warmth that is in sharp opposition to the cold conditions
observed in MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) and nearly all other independent published
estimates that we know of. [This is the contentious (MWP) Medieval
Warming Period that most scientists agree occurred except Climate-Gate].
There are numerous other serious problems that would render the MM analysis
completely invalid" The complete re-butte can be viewed on the
leaked emails. The Climate-Gate folks repeatedly miss-directed MM to
invalid data sets, so their complaints of using invalid data sets is
unfounded.
2003 October 31; From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: f055 T.Osborn, "p.jones" , "raymond s. bradley" ,
Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn
Subject: RE: CLIMLIST
Cc: mhughes
" Thanks very much Tim, I was hoping that the revisions
would ally concerns people had. I'll look forward to your comments
on this latest draft. I agree w/ Malcolm on the need to be careful w/ the
wording in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a bit of relic of a
much earlier draft, and maybe we need to rethink it a bit. Takinig the high
road is probably very important here. If *others* want to say that their
actions represent scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think
we all suspect they do), lets let *them* make these charges for us! Lets
let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the
broader case against MM." (McIntyre-McKitrick)
2003 November 7: From: "Sonja.B-C" To:
Steve McIntyre
Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Michael E. Mann-Bradley-Hughes
Cc: L.A.Love, Tim Osborn , Ross McKitrick
"Dear Steve Please send your material for comment direct to Tim, Osborne.
I would like to publish the whole debate early next year, but 'respectful'
comments in the meantime can only help and the CRU people seem genuinely
interested and have integrity. I have never heard of such bad behaviour here
as appears to have been the case between Sallie and Soon and the rest..the US
adversarial system and too many egos?? I think that adding anymore now
(the exchanges between you and Michael E. Mann/Bradley and perhaps now Tim as well)
is premature and we shall wait until the next issue. Michael E. Mann is said to be
writing something, but he has not yet contacted me, though I just hang up on
that journalist Appell who keeps on ringing. I told him that I will deal only
directly with Michael E. Mann. What cheek, after threatening me with litigation...Just
keep me in the loop. Thanks."
2003 November 12: From: Tim Osborn To: "Keith
Briffa" ,"Phil Jones"
Subject: Fwd: MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes)
"you will have seen Stephen McIntyre's request to us. We need to
talk about it, though my initial feeling is that we should turn it down (with
carefully worded/explained reason) as another interrim stage and prefer to
make our input at the peer-review stage.
In the meantime, here is an email (copied below) to Michael E. Mann from McIntyre,
requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms). I do wish
Mike had not rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect early
responses - the waters are really muddied now. He would have done better
to have taken things slowly and worked out a final response before publicising
this stuff. Excel files, other files being created early or now deleted
is really confusing things!"
2003 November 11: From: "Steve McIntyre" To: "Michael E.
Mann" Cc: "Tim Osborn", "Ross McKitrick"
Subject: MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) "On November 8, 2003, when we re-visited your FTP
site, we noticed the following changes since October 29, 2003: (1) the file
pcproxy.mat had been deleted from your FTP site; (2) the file pcproxy.txt no
longer was displayed under the /sdr directory, where it had previously been
located, although it could still be retrieved through an exact call if one
previously knew the exact file name; (3) without any notice, a new file named
"mbhfilled.mat" prepared on November 4, 2003 had been inserted into
the directory. Obviously, the files pcproxy.mat and pcproxy.txt are pertinent
to the comments referred to above and we view the deletion of pcproxy.mat from
the archival record under the current circumstances as unjustifiable. Would
you please restore these files to your FTP site, together with an annotated
text file documenting the dates of their deletion and restoration.
2004 'Inconsistency
between simulated and observed Northern Hemisphere circulation changes
"Overall we find that the observed Northern
Hemisphere circulation trend is inconsistent with simulated internal
variability, and that it is also inconsistent with the simulated response to
anthropogenic and natural forcing in eight coupled climate models. This is
therefore an aspect of large scale climate change for which current climate
models are demonstrably inconsistent with observations: If we can understand
and correct this bias this will lead to improvements in predictions of future
climate change."
Thompson, D. W. J., Wallace, J. M. & Hegerl, G.
C. J. Clim.
Gillett, N. P., Zwiers, F. W., Weaver, A. J. &
Stott, P. A. Nature Osborn,
T. J.
2004 Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of Canada proved the climate models were predisposed to produce hockey stick shaped graphs with sharply rising temperatures in the 20th century. Keth Braffa of CRU knew what he was doing with his program “fudge-factors” the climate model should have been simple linear regressions and matrix alegebra. The disclosure in November 2009 confirmed the planned falsification of the climate models. The result of this fraudulent information would result in $100 billion cost and millions of people being deceived.
2004 January 16: The journal Climatic
Change requests from Phil Jones that Michael E. Mann’s data and computer programs
be made available, to check that the calculations are reproducible by other
scientists. Jones writes to a large number of climate scientists, hosing down
the need for such action:
Paul Jones writes: 1. "The papers that McIntyre and McKitrick
refer to came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in Geophysical
Research Letters in 1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the
temperature proxy series) or the computer programs. So, acceding to the
request for this to do the review is setting a very dangerous precedent. Mike
has made all the data … available and this is all anyone should need. Making
computer programs available is something else."
Jones is arguing for despicable double standards: he and his colleagues
continue to cite these papers, by the dozen, as the "gold standard"
of the global warming debate; but when asked to substantiate the claims made
in them, he effectively argues that it is "past history"—and if
they got away without providing the programs to the peer reviewers in 1998 or
1999, then they should be scot-free forever!
Paul Jones writes: 2."The computer programs are basically
irrelevant in this whole issue. In the Geophysical Research Letters paper (in
2003 by Michael E. Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the data sets we use together.
The result is pretty much the same as for Michael E. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes in 1998 in
Nature, and for Michael E. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes in 1999 in Geophysical Research
Letters."
More misdirection. "Averaging the data sets together" is not
"simple"—or, rather, if they did do it "simply", i.e.,
naively, then not only it is statistically invalid and completely meaningless,
but the computer program should be so simple that there should be no reason to
not release it. Even Jones is forced to use the qualifier "pretty
much".
Paul Jones writes: 3.
"As many of you know, I calculate temperature data each month. Groups at
the National Climatic Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies do this as well. We don’t
exchange computer programs—we do, occasionally, though, exchange the data.
The computer programs here are trivial as they are in the paleoclimatology
work."
Again, if the computer programs were trivial, then surely they could be
distributed without any qualms at all. Note that Jones is here admitting
that the various groups do not even check each other’s programs, let alone
make them available for independent scrutiny. In other words, they have not
been checked outside their own lab at all. He furthermore admits that the data
are only checked "occasionally".
Jones now widens the crack of self-contradiction:
Paul
Jones writes: "Michael E. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes get geographical patterns,
but the bottom line (the 1000-year series of global temperatures) is almost
the same if you simply average."
Ah-ha! "Almost" the
same. And it is the panoply of subtleties that come into that
"almost" that necessitates careful checking and validation.
He continues to explain why none of this is in the least bit
"trivial":
Paul
Jones writes: "The geographical patterns give more, though, when it
comes to trying to understand what has caused the changes — e.g. by
comparison with models. McIntyre and McKitrick are only interested in the
Northern Hemisphere and Global 1000-year data sets — in fact only in the
Michael E. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes work from 1400."
Perhaps realizing that he is arguing against his own thesis, Jones now tries
to argue that Michael E. Mann
is being victimized:
Paul Jones writes: 4. "What has always intrigued me in this
whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of a better term) always pick on
Mike. There are several other data sets that I’ve produced, as has Keith
Briffa … and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper’s work has produced a slightly
different data set but we don’t get bombarded by McIntyre and McKitrick.
Mike’s paper wasn’t the first. It was in Nature and is well-used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I suspect the skeptics wish
to concentrate their effort onto one person as they did with Benjamin D. Santer after
the second IPCC report."
Apart from answering his own question—Michael E. Mann’s "hockey stock" work
is held up by all of them, including in their role as the voice of the IPCC,
as the gold standard—Jones’s argument is ridiculous.
Michael E. Mann’s data and
programs should not be scrutinized, simply because other people’s data hasn’t
yet been scrutinized? That sounds like a good Catch-22 argument for preventing
the process from starting at all!
Jones now displays the ultimate in hypocrisy:
Paul Jones writes: 5. …" I found out later that the (skeptic)
authors of a paper were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article appeared. So there is peer review and peer review!! Here the peer
review was done by like-minded colleagues."
As the Climategate emails show,
Michael E. Mann, Jones, and their colleagues were
not only in contact with their reviewers, but regularly chose them—or
applied detective work to determine who they were—as a matter of course! It
is unbelievable that they seem unable to recognize that they themselves do
precisely what they accuse others of doing—and they openly discuss it!
Now, in contrast to the above carefully-constructed defense, consider the
following email: Jones frantically leaks the journal’s request to
Michael E. Mann:
Subject: Climatic Change needs
your advice—YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Mike, "This is for YOUR EYES
ONLY. Delete after reading—please! I’m trying to redress the balance.
One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all available!! Pot
calling the kettle black—Christian doesn’t make his methods available. …
I told Steve separately, and told him to get more advice from a few others, as
well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal department. PLEASE DELETE—just
for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes."
Jones’s blind panic—in private to
Michael E. Mann—speaks volumes. He is so scared
of the ramifications that he even asks that Michael E. Mann
destroy the email
immediately. Are these the actions of scientists with nothing to hide?
2004 February 2: Keith Briffa makes an
astounding comment to Rashit Hantemirov, regarding a request made of
Hantemirov:
Keith Briffa says: "Dear Rashit Thanks for this—these people ask
many questions as they try constantly to attack the global warming proponents.
I answer sometimes, but it usually means they come back with many more
questions. All part of science, I suppose".
It is remarkable, firstly, that Keith Briffa
describes himself and his colleagues as
"global warming proponents", rather than "researchers",
"investigators", or even just "scientists". Surely they
are not meant to be "proponents" of a predetermined view? A Freudian
slip on Keith Briffa’s part, perhaps? Or a reflection of reality.
2004 February 4: A large number of
collaborators are discussing ways to avoid providing Steve McIntyre with
enough of the computer programs to actually check their results. Linda Mearns,
Senior Scientist at the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment at
the National Center for Atmospheric Research, writes: My point about the
computer programs is still that "providing the programs" can be
interpreted a lot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in one
of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all the
programs. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file
explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows someone
to see how the programming was done. And I do think that is a far sight easier
than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that one could do
the minimum. Then the point is, one isn’t faced with garish headlines about
"refusal to provide programs". I think it is harder to come up with
a garish headline about "refusal to provide completely documented
programs with appropriate instructions files and hand-holding for running
it"."
Linda Mearns’ argument is effectively this: if we are forced to provide the
computer programs, then let’s break them up into the smallest possible
pieces, so that McIntyre can see roughly what we have done, but would have an
almost impossible task putting the pieces back together again so that it could
be used—sort of a "Humpty Dumpty" version of transparency and full
disclosure."
Phil Jones realizes that this won’t fool many: if they had done the science
properly, then the computer programs and supporting documentation would be
readily available for anyone to use, without any further work:
Phil Jones writes: "So now it seems that we’re separating
"providing the programs" from "running the programs". I
can’t see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Michael E. Mann
complies,
I suspect there will need to be several sessions of interaction to explain how
to run the programs, which neither side will be very keen on."
Jones is savvy enough to understand that providing un-runnable programs will
lead to an immediate request or demand for assistance in actually getting them
to run. He now admits that, even with possession of the programs and the
data, a lot of "fiddling" is needed to get to their claimed results:
Phil Jones writes: "As I said before, I know that running the
programs will involve lots of combinations (for different time periods with
different temperature proxies)."
He further realizes that validating their programs would require validating
their mathematical "number-crunching" programs—often shared
between different programs, and hence called "library routines":
Phil Jones writes: "Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the
mathematical approach that we use, that there will be library routines. We don’t
want McIntyre (and McKitrick) to come out and say that he can’t get it to
work after a few days."
At least Jones understands the realities of the situation—although it is
surprising that he doesn’t know for certain whether they use library
routines or not. One must wonder about the environment which the more junior
scientists are accustomed to, for them to be seriously considering withholding
parts of the programs to prevent them from being usable.
Phil Jones continues:
"So, it is far from simple. I’m still against the computer programs
being given out. Mike has made the data available. That is all they should
need. The method of calculations is detailed in the original paper … and
also in several other papers Mike has written."
In other words, the skeptics have a description of what was done which should
be enough. Then this bombshell:
Phil Jones continues:
"As an aside, Michael E. Mann is now using a different method from the paper of
Michael E. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes of 1998".
So even if McIntyre and colleagues follow the method described in the 1998
paper, they still won’t obtain agreement with what Michael E. Mann
is now doing!
Could there be any clearer argument for providing the exact computer programs
and methodology used for each and every published paper? Jones apparently can’t
fathom the ridiculousness of his own words.
Phil Jones continues: It
might appear that they want the programs to check whether their version works
properly. If this is the case, then there are issues of Intellectual Property
Rights. So, if they get the programs, how do we stop them using it for
anything other than this review?"
God forbid that any other scientists should be given assistance in researching
this issue of critical importance to humanity! Jones’s treatment of their
data and research as "private property", for them to exploit and
profit from—to the exclusion of all other scientists—is obnoxious,
particularly as it is paid for by taxpayers! The truth of the matter is
the computer program code has been modified in two places to hide the decline.
2004 February 9: From: Phil
Jones To: "Tas van Ommen"
Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18
Cc: Michael E. Mann
"Steve McIntyre hasn't contacted me directly about Law Dome (yet), nor
about any of the series used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 GRL one
with Mike. I suspect (hope) that he won't. I had some emails with him a few
years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here
in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been
received from individuals and not directly from Met
Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through
GCOS. I've cc'd Mike on this, just for info. Emails have also been sent
to some other paleo people asking for datasets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith
Briffa here got one, for example. Here, they have also been in contact with
some of Keith's Russian contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get series
we've used. In the Russian case, issues relate to the
Russian (Rashit Hantemirov) having a paper out with the same series
Keith used (for the Yamal Peninsula). Series are different for two reasons.
One Keith used the RCS standardization method and secondly Rashit has added
some series since Keith got the data a couple of years ago. I'll just
sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do the same, but we'll
expect another publication in the nearish future.
Tas van Ommen says: "Anyway, I am aware of McIntyre's controversial
history and am trying to handle things in a non-inflammatory way.
He seems not to be troubling me over my own delay, but has asked for data that
was used in your Holocene paper of 1998. For this, I have referred him
to you. I expect he wants to replicate your synthesis, and so he should
use the identical data set, and I give you permission to pass on whatever it
was I gave you for that work - with the caveat that it is representative of
where the LD proxy record was in 1997, not 2004. I leave it to you to
decide how to deal with this - you may prefer to ignore the issue, and I would
understand."
2004 February 9: From: Phil
Jones To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Re: Fw: Law Dome O18
"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."
Michael E. Mann wrote: "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!"
2004 Feberuary26 : From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Crap Papers
"Just agreed to review a paper for GRL - it is absolute rubbish. It is
having a go at the CRU temperature data - not the latest vesion, but the one
you used in MBH98 !! (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) We added lots of data in for the region this
person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review to do. Can I ask you
something in CONFIDENCE - don't email around, especially not to Keith and Tim
here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that MBH98
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes)
and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record - from
models or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do. Tim
(Osborn) is reviewing them - I want to make sure he takes my comments on board,
but he wants to be squeaky clean with discussing them with others. So
forget this email when you reply."
Nice way to conduct a peer review process as a squeaky clean, independent
review.
2004 March 12 : From: Kevin
Trenberth To: tom crowley
Subject: Re: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN
ATTRIBUTIONS
Cc: Chick Keller , Richard Somerville , Tom Wigley , "Howard Hanson, LDRD",
"James E. Hansen" , Michael Schlesinger , Phil Jones , Thomas R Karl
, Mike MacCracken , Benjamin D. Santer , thompson.4, rbradley, mhughes, Keith Briffa ,
Tim Osborn
Tom crowley wrote: "if one were to independently correlate solar
and GHG with temp. since 1750, solar would "explain" about 75% of
the variance, GHG about 70% - a spectacular 140% of the variance
explained! with respect to the MWP all you have to do is plot the data
up and compile them - the numbers don't work out as being warmer than the
present - at best approaching or slightly exceeding mid-20th c. the
reason is that is was warm at different times. Soon and Baliunas of
course never showed this - but if you actually look at the damn data and
plot up, the same answer as I stated above keeps showing up, over and over.
this is like trying to convert someone with one religion to another."
Chick Keller wrote:
"Models: no real finger print that distinguishes AGHG forcings from
others! Models using AGHG forcings predict warming is function of
latitude yet the Arctic is hardly warming (north of ~^65°N), and high
latitude Antarctic (excepting for the peninsula) is actually cooling slightly.
Models: As you say need AGHG forcings to simulate last 30 years of
observed warming. But, they counter, UAH satellite reductions show no
such warming so don't need AGHG forcing (or at least don't need effects of
positive feedbacks and just increases in AGHGs don't cause so much warming).
Solar forcing--not able to generate last 30 years of observed warming.
Same counter as last one--"See, they say, no increased solar in last 25
years is consistent with no warming!!
Also, since no warming since 1945, MWP most likely to have been as warm as now
and thus sun can indeed explain (with proper lags) observed warming thus far.
Their model--climate varies depending on solar activity. all
observations are consistent with this.
Models predict that any surface warming will be seen in the troposphere.
Since UAH satellite reduction shows no such warming--
1. models are wrong and/or no warming at surface just lousy observations.
2. If no warming at surface in last 30 years AGHG forcing predictions by
models is incorrect probably due to poor cloud/water vapor
modeling--no positive feedbacks to speak of.
Sooooo, you can say all you want that all the prestigious societies and folks
say it's AGHGs, but they've been bamboozled by a few of
elitist scientists. As long as satellites show no recent warming, the
entire AGHG hypothesis collapses, not because multi-atomic molecules don't
cause the atmosphere to be more opaque, but because there are no
positive feedbacks which the models need to get the "right"
answer.
So, what I need is strong evidence that the surface record is indeed
correct (UHI effect is small, and marine boundary layer approximation is
correct).
Now, Richard, toss in large effects of land use changes and of black soot
forcing changing earth's albedo, and you now have additional forcings which
may be causing warming but can't be countered by reducing AGHGs.
Soooo, it still ain't all that easy to convince an audience that the
Singer's of this world aren't on to at least part of the problem.
AND keep in mind that increased CO2 is good for us--more agriculture, etc.
Nope it just ain't that easy. So any information--graphics, etc on these
issues will be greatly appreciated. Regards to all, chick"
Richard says:
"Perhaps the most important is that satellites don't show much
warming since 1979 and disagree substantially with the surface record,
which must then be incorrect. Were we able to resolve this conundrum, I
think most of the other objections to human generated climate change would
lose their credibility. For what it's worth, here's my take on
your approach. I respectfully disagree with you that hammering away on
reconciling the MSU data with radiosonde and surface data is the right way to
go in dealing with the Fred Singers of the world. Even though much of
the differences may now be apparently explained, it's still a terribly messy
job. The satellite system wasn't designed to measure tropospheric
temperatures, the calibration and orbital decay and retrieval algorithm and
all the other technical issues are ugly, and nobody knows how much the lower
stratospheric cooling ought to have infected the upper troposphere, among
other points one might make. One of the tactics of the skeptics is to
create the impression among nonscientists, especially journalists, that
the entire science of climate change rests on the flimsy foundation of one or
two lines of evidence, so that casting doubt on that foundation ought to bring
down the entire structure. For temperature, that approach is clearly
behind the attacks on the "hockey stick" curve over the last 1,000
years or the satellite vs. in situ differences over the last 25 years.
Refuting the errors of the papers by Soon and Baliunas or by McIntyre and
Mckitrick doesn't faze these people. They just shift their ground and
produce another erroneous attack. Their goal is not to advance the
science, but to perpetuate the appearance of controversy and doubt.
I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific
uncertainties work both ways. We don't understand cloud feedbacks.
We don't understand air-sea interactions. We don't understand aerosol
indirect effects. The list is long."
2004 April 7: Three geophysicists from the University
of Utah, in the April 7, 2004 edition of Geophysical Research Letters,
concluded that Michael E. Mann's methods used to create his temperature reconstruction
were deeply flawed. In fact, their judgment is harsher than that. As they
wrote, Michael E. Mann's results are "based on using end points in computing changes
in an oscillating series" and are " just bad science." I
repeat: "just bad science."
2004 May 7: From:
Phil Jones To: Scott Rutherford
Subject: RoG Data
Cc: "Michael E. Mann"
"Getting another email from McIntyre asking me for paleo data series I
don't have (I'm not going to reply, by the way even though he calls me Phil Jones
and other emails he sends me are to Dr Crowley and Keith Briffa who've also not
replied) reminded me that I agreed with Mike to put together as many of the
series from the RoG paper onto a page on the CRU web site."
2004 May 7: From:
Phil Jones To: "Tas van Ommen" , Caspar Ammann ,
Subject: RoG paper
"Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy
called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not
sending anything, partly because we don't have some of the series he
wants, also partly as we've got the data through contacts like you, but mostly
because he'll distort and misuse them."
2004 May 12: About 100 greenhouse gas scientist in Australia concluded "as the world warms it is on average, getting wetter" they went on to say a wetter and cloudier world would see more plants and more photosynthesis to counter greenhouse gases and also means less evaporation as less solar radiation reaches the earth. Contrary to widespread expectations, potential evaporation from soil and land-based water bodies like lakes is decreasing in most places.
2004 May 31: : Phil Jones director of East Anglia’s CRU centre writes Michael E. Mann of, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts; “Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for (GRL) Geophysical Research Letters) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised..”
2004 July 8: Phil Jones director of East Anglia’s CRU centre writes Michael E. Mann of, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts “The other paper by MM (Steven McIntyre editor Climate Audit & Ross McKitrick Professor of economics University Guelph) is just garbage. De Freitas is the Editor again.. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC (U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow –even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Jones also referred to another non-peer-reviewed report from scientists Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai – who disputed global warming. Mr Michael E. Mann was close to one of the authors and was encouraging them to submit to other climate-related journals.
2004 July 23: Phil Jones To: dwlarson
"Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every time Michael E. Mann and his
colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000 gets warmer and warmer
after the fact...My criticisms regarding the sheath (largely from a paper on
which I am working) stem from the characterization of the uncertainty by MJ
that arises solely from the 'fit' statistics to the 1600-1855 period using
cross-validation with, not observations, but composites of three previously
compiled reconstructions, including that developed by MBH
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes) - the focus of known
flaws and errors in the shaft. Note that some of the same data are used
in both MBH (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) and MJ, which doesn't allow for a truly
independent cross-validation. My rather obvious point was not that fit
statistics should not be included (as Jones asserts) but that MJ included no
errors in either input realization (observations or proxy data) or other
obvious sources of error. The claim by MBH (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) and MJ is that only the model
lack-of-fit contributes to uncertainty is inherently flawed.
Considerable errors exist in the representation of both fields - annual
temperatures from both observations and proxy records - and must be
incorporated. Clearly, there is a spatial bias associated with
observations that are biased away from the oceans, high latitudes, and high
altitudes. The spatial problem is far more pronounced when only a
handful of proxies are used to represent the global temperatures at earlier
time periods. Both MBH (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) and MJ are equally guilty in this regard."
2004 August 10: Michael E. Mann
writes to Phil Jones, Gabi Hegerl, and Tom Crowley:
"I’ve attached a cleaned-up and
documented version of the computer programs that I wrote for doing the Michael E. Mann
and Jones (2003) calculations. I did this knowing that Phil Jones
and I are likely
to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future,
so it is best to clean up the programs and provide them to some of my close
colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use these
programs for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass them along where
they may get into the hands of the wrong people."
To anyone who has spent their career performing numerical computations, Michael E. Mann’s
email is simply astounding.
Firstly, by "cleaning up" his programs, he is not, in fact,
providing the programs that generated the results that his publications were
based on; he is providing an altered version. It would be like the police
prosecutor "cleaning up" the evidence before showing it to the jury.
Secondly, Michael E. Mann’s admission that his programs were previously undocumented—an
admission that he will repeat shortly—destroys any residual credibility that
any of his scientific work may have otherwise retained—period. Masses of
formulas, without any explanation of what they are doing or why they are being
applied, are worse than useless: they show Michael E. Mann
to have the scientific
maturity of a teenager (and that is an insult to many conscientious
teenagers).
Thirdly, it is unfathomable that it is only at this late date that Michael E. Mann
even
suggests that his "trusted colleagues" check that his programs
produce the results he claims—let alone that what has been programmed is
even mathematically or statistically correct. In other words, none of the
results of any of these "scientists" are ever checked by anyone
prior to publication. That is simply stupefying.
Fourthly, Michael E. Mann again damns himself by expressing his fear that his programs—even
after being cleaned up and documented—will get into the hands of the
"wrong people".
Fifth his "trusted colleagues" wouldn't check his programs with a
ten foot pole.
One might wonder whether all of this astounding incompetence might cast doubts
on Michael E. Mann’s results. But wait! There is no need to speculate:
Michael E. Mann himself
provides the first answer, in the very same paragraph, with what must make him
eligible for an honorary role in Monty Python:
Michael E. Mann writes "In the
process of trying to clean the programs up, I realized I had something a bit
odd, not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. … It looks like
I had two similarly-named data sets floating around in the programs, and used
perhaps the less preferable one ….This may explain part of what perplexed
Gabi when she was comparing my results with the real temperatures. I’ve
attached the version of the analysis where the correct data is used instead,
as well as the computer programs, which you’re welcome to try to use
yourself and play around with. Basically, this increases everything everywhere
by the factor 1.29. Perhaps this is more in line with what Gabi was estimating
(Gabi?). Anyway, it doesn’t make a major difference, but you might
want to take this into account in any further use of the Michael E. Mann
and Jones data…"
Yes, the world will take this into account: Don’t trust the Michael E. Mann
and Jones
data at all. Michael E. Mann’s lack of
honesty is manifest in his own words: he himself discovers, in his own bird’s
nest of "spaghetti programming", that he made a careless error; but
rather than declare it as such—to even his closest colleagues—he
whitewashes it as "not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small
difference". A
"scientist" that can never admit that he is wrong? I think we all
know where his "science" belongs.
Hilariously, Michael E. Mann then suggests that his comedy of errors might provide a good
opportunity for publishing another of his illustrious publications:
Michael E. Mann writes "Phil Jones: is
this worth a follow-up paper to Geophysical Research Letters, with a link to
the computer programs?"
Where is this man coming from.
2004 September 1: Canadian climatologists are red-faced after a summer of record-breaking cold when their model predicted above normal temperatures. Manitoba for example dropped about 3 C (5 F) below normal from May to August and tied with Siberia for the worst summer in the hemisphere. Winnipeg had the chilliest mean temperature since records started being kept in 1873. The Pacific and Arctic Oceans are 3 degrees above normal and climatologists assumed by their model this would cause above normal temperatures. They admit they may never understand the cause of global cooling this summer. It is noteworthy that climatologists since 1999 have known that global warming can sometimes lead to cold weather or even global cooling.
2004 September 28: Andy Revkin,
Environment Reporter for The New York Times, writes to Tim Osborn:
"Again, the take-away message is
that
Michael E. Mann’s method can only work if past variability is the same as the
variability during the period used to calibrate your method. So it could
be correct, but it could be very wrong as well. By the way, von Storch
doesn’t agree with Osborn and Keith Briffa
on the idea that higher past
variability would mean there’d likely be high future variability as well
(bigger response to greenhouse gases). He simply says it’s time to toss the
"hockey-stick graph" and start again; he doesn’t take it further
than that. Is that right?"
If you toss the "hockey-stick graph" you toss Global
Warming. The New York Times is so committed to Global Warming that if
'Hell Froze over' they would still believe.
2004 September 30: Dr. Hans von Storch, a noted German climate researcher, who, along with colleagues, published a devastating finding in the issue of the journal Science. As the authors wrote: "We were able to show in a publication in Science that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish."
2004 October 14: From: Phil Jones To:
Mann@virginia.edu
Subject: Re: comment Von Storch?
"Dear professor Jones, I am a science journalist of the Dutch daily
newspaper NRC Handelsblad in Rotterdam. I try to write an article about
climate (surface temperature) reconstruction as far back as the year 1000 -
the well know Mann, Bradley, Hughes (1998 and 1999) research. The reason
is, of course, the publication of the article of Von Storch, Zorita, c.s.
in Science-online (30 september). Von Storch claims that the statistical
approach of Michael E. Mann c.s. produced a serious underestimation of the
low frequency (long term) oscillations in global temperature. The conclusion
could be that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today. And the
recent warming is - after all - not so special. Can you in a few words -
and for a general public - give a comment on the paper? Does it make sense? It
seems pretty convincing to me. Can you help me? Waiting for your
reply, sincerely yours, Karel Knip
NRC Handelsblad Rotterdam"
2004 December 10: From: Gavin Schmidt To:
mprather, robert.berner, p.jones, rjs, jhansen, dshindell, rmiller, drind, td,
aclement, james.white, hfd, wuebbles, thompson.3, thompson.4, juerg, mhughes,
jto, tcrowley, wigley, Benjamin D. Santer1, schrag, jlean, weaver, djt, Keith Briffa, t.osborn,
peter.stott, robock, trenbert, mmaccrac, schlesin, dkaroly, omichael, shs,
berger, david, drdendro, davet, mcane, meehl, myles.allen, natasha,
Thomas.R.Karl, m.manning, nmantua, Jeffrey.Park, jseveringhaus, bengtsson,
jcole, juliebg, rich, hegerl, dcayan, chris.folland, masson, goosse,
atimmermann, ajb, penner, solomon, jmahlman, rbierbau
Subject: RealClimate.org
Cc: Michael E. Mann , Eric Steig , ammann, rbradley, aclement, rasmus.benestad,
rahmstorf
"No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven "commentary" on the Internet and in the opinion
columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and letters
to the editor, but this is often a thankless task. In order to be
a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got
together to build a new 'climate blog' website: RealClimate.org which will be
launched over the next few days at: http://www.realclimate.org
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we
can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are doing the
rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.
on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
- Gavin Schmidt
- Michael E. Mann
- Eric Steig
- William Connolley
- Stefan Rahmstorf
- Ray Bradley
- Amy Clement
- Rasmus Benestad
- William Connolley
- Caspar Ammann "
'The media is the message'
2004 December 28: From: [1]Steve McIntyre
To: [2]David Randall
Cc: [3]Scott Rutherford ; [4]Paul Kushner ; [5]Cindy Carrick ; [6]Ross
McKitrick
Subject: Rutherford et al. [2004]
"Recently, at the website [7]www.realclimate.org, Michael E. Mann publicized
a submission by Rutherford et al. to Journal of Climate, entitled Proxy-based
Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to
Method, Predictor Network, Target Season, and Target Domain. This
paper contains some untrue statements and mischaracterizations regarding
criticisms we (McIntyre and McKitrick) made of Michael E. Mann et al. (1998) [MBH98] in a
2003 paper and subsequent exchanges under the auspices of Nature. We are
writing to request that these untrue statements be removed from the paper
before any further processing of the document by Journal of Climate takes
place. First, Rutherford et al. states that McIntyre and McKitrick
[2003] used an incorrect version of the Michael E. Mann et al. (1998) proxy indicator
dataset. The history of this matter is summarized below (all relevant emails
and other documentation are available at [8]http://www.climate2003.com/file.issues.htm
. In April 2003, we requested from Michael E. Mann the FTP location of the dataset
used in MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes). Michael E. Mann advised me that he was unable to recall the location
of this dataset and referred the request to Rutherford. Rutherford eventually
directed us to a file (pcproxy.txt) located at a URL at Michael E. Manns FTP site. In
using this data file, we noticed numerous problems with it, not least with the
principal component series. We sought specific confirmation from Michael E. Mann
that
this dataset was the one used in MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes); Michael E. Mann said that he was too busy to
respond to this or any other inquiry. Because of the many problems in this
data set, we undertook a complete new re-collation of the data, using the list
of data sources in the SI to MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) and using original archived versions
wherever possible. After publication of McIntyre and McKitrick
[2003], Michael E. Mann said that dataset at his FTP site to which we had been referred
was an incorrect version of the data and that this version had been
prepared especially for me; through a blog, he provided a new URL which
he now claimed to contain the correct data set. The file creation date of the
incorrect version was in 2002, long prior to my first request for data,
clearly disproving his assertion that it was prepared in response to my
request. Michael E. Mann and/or Rutherford then deleted this incorrect version with its
date evidence from his FTP site.
It is false and misleading for Rutherford et al. to now allege that we used
the wrong dataset. We used the dataset they directed us to at their FTP site.
More importantly, for our analysis, to avoid the problems with the principal
component series, we re-collated the tree ring data identified in MBH98 from
ITRDB archives, calculated fresh principal component series; in addition, we
re-collated other proxy data from archived versions wherever possible. Thus,
our own calculations were not affected by the errors in the supplied file as
we did NOT use the incorrect version in our calculations. To suggest
otherwise, as is done in Rutherford et al [2004], is highly misleading. To
date, no source code or other evidence has been provided to fully demonstrate
that the incorrect version (now deleted) did not infect some of Michael E. Manns and
Rutherfords other work. In this respect, we note that the now deleted
file pcproxy.txt occurs in a legend in a graphic at Rutherfords website,
indicating possible use elsewhere by Rutherford of the incorrect version.
Secondly, Rutherford et al. [2004] argues that the difference between MBH98
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes)
results and MM03 results occurs because of our misunderstanding of a stepwise
procedure in MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) for the calculation of principal component series for tree
ring networks. Again, this claim is misleading on its face. While our 2003
paper did not implement the (then undisclosed) stepwise procedure, as soon as
this matter was raised in subsequent correspondence in November 2003, we
implemented it and we continued to observe the discrepancies in principal
component series and final results. The current manuscript ignores a
refereed exchange at Nature in which we specifically clarified (in response to
a reviewers question) that we had obtained such results while using the
exact stepwise procedure described in MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes). Michael E. Mann
is aware of this refereed
exchange.
The reason for the difference between our results and MBH98
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes) results is
primarily due to the fact that the tree ring principal component series in
MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) cannot be replicated using a conventional principal components method.
The MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) principal component series can only be replicated by standardizing
on a short segment a procedure nowhere mentioned in MBH98
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes) and only recently
acknowledged in the SI to the Corrigendum of Michael E. Mann et al. [Nature 2004]
in response to our concerns on the subject expressed to Nature. In
effect, MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) did not use a conventional centered PC calculation, but used an
uncentered PC calculation on de-centered data. The impact of this method
is the subject of ongoing controversy, which is well-known to the
authors, but the existence of the method in MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) is no longer in doubt. In
discussions of PC calculations in 2004 exchanged with the authors
through Nature, we implemented the stepwise procedures of MBH98
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes) referred to in
the present manuscript and demonstrated that important differences remain even
with stepwise procedures, as long as the uncentered and decentered
methods of MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) are used. The differences in PC series resulting from using
centered and uncentered series has been fully agreed to by all parties in the
Nature exchange, although the parties continue to disagree on the ultimate
effect on final NH temperature calculations. Accordingly, the discussion
in Rutherford et al. [2004] is very incomplete and misleading in this respect.
While we recognize that Michael E. Mann et al. have argued that they can salvage
MBH98-type results using alternative methodologies (e.g. increasing the number
of PC series used in the 1400-1450 period), these salvage efforts are
themselves a matter of controversy and do not validate the claims being put
forward in the Rutherford et al. paper." "Regards, Stephen
McIntyre and Ross McKitrick"
2004 December 29: From: "Steve
McIntyre" To: "Phil Jones"
Subject: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:08:18 -0500
"Dear Phil Jones, I have noticed the following statements in Rutherford
et al [2004], in which you are a co-author. As compared with some of your
co-authors, I get the impression that, while you feel very strongly about your
views, you are also concerned with getting to the bottom of matters and
are less concerned with scoring meaningless debating points. In this
spirit, I draw your attention to some incorrect statements in Rutherford et
al. [2004] concerning our material. There is really a quite serious problem
with the PC methods in MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes) and the comments made in Rutherford et al
[2004] are really quite misleading. For the reasons set out below, I request
that these comments be removed from the manuscript. Regards, Steve
McIntyre"
2004 December 30: To: Phil Jones From: "Michael E.
Mann"
Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]
"I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
You've probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently
exposes McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is--pure crap. Of course, we've
already done this on "RealClimate", but Wahl and Ammann is
peer-reviewed and independent of us. I've attached it in case you haven't seen
(please don't pass it along to others yet). It should be in press shortly.
Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things can
come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate--he is
funded by the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc...
2005, the UK the House of Lords Select Committee on
Economic Affairs produced a report on the economics of climate change. It
commented on the IPCC process:
We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of
its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by
political considerations. There are significant doubts about some aspects of
the IPCC's emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions
scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach.
There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have
been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to
reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change. The
Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of
global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs
of measures to control warming and their benefits. Since warming will
continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags.
2005 Al Gore created the film Inconvenient Truth based on a known fraud.
The (IPCC) Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, an United Nations Agency knew since 1990 Global
Warming was a fraud. Tens of thousands of scientists say Al Gore is
a basically a liar. Climate-Gate would prove this beyond a reasonable doubt in
2009.
In
the court case Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a
British judge ruled that there were nine "inaccuracies" in An
Inconvenient Truth, including Gore's claim that sea level could rise by up
to 20 ft. The IPCC's own report predicted a maximum rise of 59cm in sea level
over 100 years .The
Science and Public Policy Institute has taken issue with thirty five of Gore's
claims in An Inconvenient Truth
2005 Mr. Steve McIntyre, a mining exploration expert based in Toronto, and Mr. Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph, continued to dog Mr. Michael E. Mann's view of climate history from University of Massachusetts. First they wanted release of the data behind the "Hockey Stick" graph and the computer code that produced various trend lines. When Mr. Michael E. Mann and CRU declined or resisted, Mr. McIntrye began filing (FOI) Freedom Of Information requests in the United States and Britain. The emails of Clomate-Gate portray embattled scientists fighting desperately to interfere with official FUI process. The data was systematically destroyed to prevent disclosure.
2005 January Christopher Landsea, formerly a research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA resigned from work on the IPCCAR4, saying that he viewed the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound" It was eventually determined that 16 major claims made in the AR4 has been shown to have originated with environmental groups rather than scientists, including the claims that climate change is making tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires and flood worse.
2005 January: Michael
E. Mann of (U of M) called the editor of (GRL) Geophysical Research Letters, the
official science publication of the American Geophysical Union, to try to head
off a paper by Mr. McIntry of Canada. The
editor, Steve Mackwell, defends the decision to publish and tells Mr Michael
E. Mann that the McIntryre paper has been thoroughly
peer reviewed by four scientists. “You
would not in general be asked to look it over”.
Later in 2005, Mr. Michael E. Mann wrote to Mr. Phil Jones on their troubles with
(GRL) Geophysical Research Letters
journal after Mr. Mackwell’s term as editor was up:
“The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial
leadership”.
Keep in mind that peer reviews were by friends who held
the same beliefs.
2005 January 4: From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa
Subject: IPCC last 2000 years data
Cc: Eystein Jansen , cddhr
"The biggest problem with what appears here is in the handling of the
greater variability found in some reconstructions, and the whole discussion of
the 'hockey stick'. The tone is defensive, and worse, it both minimizes
and avoids the problems. We should clearly say that there are
substantial uncertainties that remain concerning the degree of variability -
warming prior to 12K BP, and cooling during the LIA, due
primarily to the use of paleo-indicators of uncertain applicability, and the
lack of global (especially tropical) data. Attempting to avoid such
statements will just cause more problems. In addition, some of the
comments are probably wrong - the warm-season bias should if anything produce
less variability, since warm seasons (at least in GCMs) feature smaller
climate changes than cold seasons. The discussion of uncertainties in tree
ring reconstructions should be direct, not referred to other references - it's
important for this document. How the long-term growth is factored in/out
should be mentioned as a prime problem. The lack of tropical data - a few
corals prior to 1700 - has got to be discussed. The primary criticism of
McIntyre and McKitrick, which has gotten a lot of play on the Internet, is
that Michael E. Mann et al. transformed each tree ring prior to calculating PCs by
subtracting the 1902-1980 mean, rather than using the length of the full time
series (e.g., 1400-1980), as is generally done. M&M claim that when they
used that procedure with a red noise spectrum, it always resulted in a 'hockey
stick'. Is this true? If so, it constitutes a devastating criticism of
the approach; if not, it should be refuted. While IPCC cannot be expected to
respond to every criticism a priori, this one has gotten such publicity it
would be foolhardy to avoid it. In addition, there are other valid
criticisms to the PC approach. Assuming that the PC structure stays the same
was acknowledged in the Michael E. Mann et al paper as somewhat risky, given the
possibility of altered climate forcing (e.g., solar). Attempting to
reconstruct tropical temperatures using high latitude PCs assumes that the PCs
are influenced only by global scale processes. In a paper we now have in
review in JGR, and in other papers already published, it is shown that high
latitude climate changes can directly affect the local expression of the modes
of variability (NAO in particular). So attempting to fill in data at
other locations from PCs that could have local influences may not work well;
at the least, it has large uncertainties associated with it."
2005 January 5: Senate Floor
Statement by U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)
"As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, "much of the debate
over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science." I called
the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on the American people," a statement that, to put it mildly,
was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist
organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those
same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes,
raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance
their campaigns. I have insisted all along that the climate change
debate should be based on fundamental principles of science, not religion.
Ultimately, I hope, it will be decided by hard facts and data-and by serious
scientists committed to the principles of sound science. Instead of
censoring skeptical viewpoints, as my alarmist friends favor, these
scientists must be heard, and I will do my part to make sure that they are
heard."
All his concerns of a lengthy speech were violated by the Climate-Gate Gang as
exposed by the emails..
2005 January 6: From:
Phil Jones To: "Parker, David (Met Office)" , Neil Plummer
Cc: "Thomas C Peterson"
"Just to reiterate David's points, I'm hoping that IPCC will stick with
1961-90. The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about the 1990s
being better observed than the 1960s don't hold too much water with me.
There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling chapters.
If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge (to make a mess of, destroy or ruin)
as it will be hard to do things properly for the surface temp and precip as
we'd lose loads of stations with long records that would then have incomplete
normals. There won't be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it
won't help with satellite series or the models. 1981-2000 helps with MSU
series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete SST.
Personally I don't want to change the base period till after I retire !
if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be
muted. " warming will be destroyed is a more accurate word.
Selecting the best time period is important to present your scientific beliefs
rather than pure science. It is also noteworthy that Global Cooling
commenced in 1994 and continued into 2010.
2005 January 12: From:
Jonathan Overpeck To: Bette Otto-Bleisner , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn ,
Eystein Jansen , peltier, rahmstorf, cddhr
Subject: Urgent - FINAL review/edits of 6.5.8 Sensitivity
Cc: raynaud, Jean-Claude Duplessy
"I've removed the table - I agree it seems to imply a solidity that is
really not there. The real reason for going into such detail, rather
than just saying, "well, the forcing and response are uncertain, so we
can't conclude anything", is I think it's important to show that
paleoclimate scientists have gone to some effort to try to deduce climate
sensitivity from the paleorecord, the parameter that is probably of most
interest to IPCC."
2005 January 12: From:
Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn
Cc: rahmstorf, drind, Eystein Jansen , joos
"There is lots of debate about the MWP,. and we need to weigh in. Was it
global, hemispheric, regional only (e.g., Europe and N. Atlantic - can then
refer back to it in ocean section)? Was it one synchronous warm event or a
bunch of shorter regionally asynchronous events? Warmer than 20th? Late 20th?
(think you answered this, but need to nail it!). Cite the cast of papers
you've already discussed, plus Bradley et al Science 03."
The debate will continue on (MWP) Medieval Warming Period into 2010.
2005 January 13: From:
Stefan Rahmstorf To: David Rind
Cc: Tim Osborn , Jonathan Overpeck , Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen ,
FortunatJoos
"I think it makes no sense for the purpose of the IPCC to discuss a
climate sensitivity to orbital forcing - if such a thing can be defined at
all. I think this "directionality" of climate sensitivity is
not a good concept. I still don't understand how you get this conclusion. This
would mean: if you take models with those estimated forcings and run them,
they should show a big mismatch with the proxy data. As far as I can tell from
the diagram by Michael E. Mann attached, combining models and data, only the Von
Storch simulation (not shown on this one) does show such a mismatch."
2005 January 20: Tom Wigley
wrote: "This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in
recent years. I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had
some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah
and I have on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so
is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was
trying to keep it from being published. Proving bad behavior here is
very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics
camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go
through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be
difficult."
Steve Mackwell Editor in Chief, GRL to Michael E. Mann
"I have reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The
editor in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the
manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an extensive
and thorough review. For that reason, he requested reviews from 3 knowledgable
scientists. All three reviews recommended publication. While I do agree
that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat aggresively) some of your past
work, I do not feel that it takes a particularly harsh tone. On the other
hand, I can understand your reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a
Comment, but rather as a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in
general be asked to look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the
reviewers. Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to
interfere in the timely publication of this work. However, you are
perfectly in your rights to write a Comment, in which you challenge the
authors' arguments and assertions. Should you elect to do this, your Comment
would be provided to them and they would be offered the chance to write
a Reply."
The Climate-Gate Gang would continue to intimidate editors of scientific
journals. Reminds me of the inquisition!
2005 January 28: Jonathan
Overpeck wrote: "please not that in the US, the US Congress is
questioning whether it is ethical for IPCC authors to be using the IPCC to
champion their own work/opinions. Obviously, this is wrong and scary, but if
our goal is to get policy makers (liberal and conservative alike) to take our
chapter seriously, it will only hurt our effort if we cite too many of our own
papers (perception is often reality). PLEASE do not cite anything that is not
absolutely needed, and please do not cite your papers unless they are
absolutely needed. Common sense, but it isn't happening. Please be more
critical with your citations so we save needed space, and also so we don't get
perceived as self serving or worse."
Not only do they cite their own work, they review their own work hardly a peer
review.
2005 February 2: From: Phil Jones To:
"Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever
hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete
the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US
force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The
UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have
a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a
worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for
his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind
that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into
an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it ! Are
you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be
involved if you are"
If your going to tell a lie, tell a big lie.
2005 February 3: From: Phil Jones To:
"Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: For your eyes only
"Thanks Phil Jones, Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be
very careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big
time when he established that directory so that Tim could access the
data. Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the
contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also
intellectual property rights issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of
things will play out ultimately in the U.S. I saw the paleo draft
(actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor comments). It
looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm
(I believe they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities
for that)...Will keep you updated on stuff...talk to you later, mike"
2005 February 4: To: Andy Revkin From:
"Michael E. Mann"
Subject: Re: FW: "hockey stock" methodology misleading
"The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think
you'll find this reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our
field you discuss this with."
RealClimate response: "The Moberg et al paper is at least real
science. But there are some real problems with it (you'll want to followup w/
people like Phil Jones for a 2nd opinion). While the paper actually
reinforces the main conclusion of previous studies (it also finds the late
20th century to be the warmest period of the past two millennia), it
challenges various reconstructions using tree-ring information (which includes
us, but several others such as Jones et al, Crowley, etc). I'm pretty sure, by
the way, that a very similar version of the paper was rejected previously by
Science.
A. number of us are therefore very surprised that Nature is publishing it,
given a number of serious problems: Their method for combining frequencies is
problematic and untested: A. they only use a handful of records, so there is a
potentially large sampling bias.
B. worse, they use different records for high-frequencies and low-frequencies, so the bias isn't even the same--the reconstruction is apples and oranges.
C. The wavelet method is problematic. We have found in our own work that you cannot simply combine the content in different at like frequencies, because different proxies have different signal vs. noise characteristics at different frequencies--for some records, there century-scale variability is likely to be pure noise. They end up therfore weighting noise as much as signal. For some of the records used, there are real age model problems. The timescale isn't known to better than +/- a couple hundred years in several cases. So when they average these records together, the century-scale variability is likely to be nonsense."
D. They didn't do statistical verification. This is absolutely essential for such reconstructions (see e.g. the recent Cook et al and Luterbacher et al papers in Science). They should have validated their reconstruction against long-instrumental records, as we and many others have. Without having done so, there is no reason to believe the reconstruction has any reliability. This is a major problem w/ the paper. It is complicated by the fact that they don't produce a pattern, but just a hemispheric mean--that makes it difficult to do a long-term verification. But they don't attempt any sort of verification at all! There are some decades known to be warm from the available instrumental records (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction completely misses--the reconstruction gives the impression that all years are cold between 1500 and 1750. The reconstruction would almost certainly fail cross-validation against long instrumental records. If so, it is an unreliable estimate of past changes. We're surprised the Nature Reviewers didn't catch this.
E. They also didn't validate their method against a
model (where I believe it would likely fail). We have done so w/ our own
"hybrid frequency-domain" method that combines information
separately at low and high-frequencies, but taking into account the problem
mentioned above. This is described in: Rutherford, S., Michael E. Mann,
M.E.,
Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Keith Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D.,
[3]Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions:
Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target
Domain, Journal of Climate, in press (2005)."
Six editors at Climate Research were made to resign by February 21,
2005 and the Climate-Gate Group would take over, what more can I say?
2005 February 5; Phil Jones director of East Anglia’s CRU centre writes Michael E. Mann of, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts “And don’t leave stuff laying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [Steven McIntyre editor Climate Audit & Ross McKitrick Professor of economics University Guelph] have been after the CRU (Climate Research Unit) station data for years. I leave it to you to delete as appropriate. I deleted loads of emails, so I have very little, if any at all. Mike Hulme, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Biffa re AR4? [AR4 is the 4th Assessment Report on the science of climate change produced by the IPCC in 2007]. Keith Biffa will do likewise. Can you also email Gene (Eugene Vaganov?) and get him to do the same? We will be getting Casper [Ammann a scientist at the Climate and Global Dynamics Division of the United States National Centre for Atmospheric Research, his area is natural climate variability and change over the past centuries and millennia and their application to climate change.], to do the same. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than (provide) to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? -- ours does! The UK works on precedents, so first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” [Phil Jones had refused to provide station data claiming that it was covered by all sorts of confidentiality agreements (though he couldn’t find the agreements and couldn’t remember who they were with.] Mr. Michael E. Mann said he got a job at Pennsylvania State University. If there is any lingering doubt of a conspiracy this one email dispels any doubt. Not only were emails destroyed but source weather. Temperature, and tree-ring sampling data. Deleting of emails subject to (FOI) freedom of Information requests is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naught to do that” says Ms. Hazel Moffait, and that is a gross understatement.
2005 February 14: From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Tom Wigley
Cc: Phil Jones , Keith Briffa
" Re WSJ. They say ... "Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment
Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Michael E. Mann's statistical
method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the
data." Michael E. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends
to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case
are wrong. Indeed, Michael E. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate
data using completely different math techniques."
"It is a bit worrying that Francis agrees with M&M -- but it seems
that you do too. Tom"
2005 February 21: From: Phil Jones To: Michael E. Mann
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE
SECRET DATA
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" , "Malcolm Hughes"
"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 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes). The IPCC comes in for a lot of
stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate ! 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 !"
attachment; From: "Peiser, Benny" To: "cambridge-conference"
PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
"This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, Mr. Michael E. Mann
tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm
by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Michael E. Mann was forced to
publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his
statistical methods have since grown."
"The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005 HOCKEY STICK ON ICE
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and
McIntyre says is Michael E. Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to
inquiring minds his data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his
code. So this is what I say to Michael E. Mann and others expressing deep concern
over peer review: give up your data, methods and code freely and with a smile
on your face."
"Kevin Vranes, Science Policy, 18 February 2005 Michael E. Mann's work doesn't
meet that definition [of science], and those who use Michael E. Mann's curve in
their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of Pournelle's Laws
states "You can prove anything if you can make up your data." I will
now add another Pournelle's Law: "You can prove anything if you can keep
your algorithms secret."
"Jerry Pournelle, 18 February 2005 "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING WITH
SECRET DATA AND ALGORITHMS" The time has come to question the
IPCC's status as the near-monopoly source of information and advice for its
member governments. It is probably futile to propose reform of the
present IPCC process. Like most bureaucracies, it has too much momentum
and its institutional interests are too strong for anyone realistically to
suppose that it can assimilate more diverse points of view, even if more
scientists and economists were keen to join up. The rectitude and credibility
of the IPCC could be
best improved not through reform, but through competition."
"The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005 Just so we're clear,
this hockey stick isn't a sports implement; it's a scientific graph. Back in
the late 1990s, American geoscientist Michael E. Mann published a chart that
purported to show average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over
the past 1,000 years. The chart showed relatively minor fluctuations in
temperature over the first 900 years, then a sharp and continuous rise over
the past century, giving it a hockey-stick shape. Mr. Michael E. Mann's chart was
both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body of
scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium,
followed by a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also
provided some visually arresting scientific support for the contention that
fossil-fuel emissions were the cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder,
then, that Mr. Michael E. Mann's hockey stick appears five times in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on global warming, which paved
the way to this week's global ratification -- sans the U.S., Australia and
China -- of the Kyoto Protocol. Yet there were doubts about Mr. Michael E. Mann's
methods and analysis from the start. In 1998, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas
of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics published a paper in the
journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a Medieval warm
period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and
six editors at Climate Research were made to resign. Still,
questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant
and amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's
University of Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick
analysis. Their conclusion: Mr. Michael E. Mann's work was riddled with "collation
errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete
data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal
components, and other quality control defects." Once these were
corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data."
"This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the
Journal's Antonio Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Michael E. Mann tried to shut down debate
by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his
conclusions. All the same, Mr. Michael E. Mann was forced to publish a retraction of some
of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods have since
grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada (a government agency)
notes that Mr. Michael E. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when
there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as
Berkeley's Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center
essentially agree. We realize this may all seem like so much academic
nonsense. Yet if there really was a Medieval warm period (we draw no
conclusions), it would cast some doubt on the contention that our SUVs and air
conditioners, rather than natural causes, are to blame for apparent global
warming." "There is also the not-so-small matter of the
politicization of science: If climate scientists feel their careers might be
put at risk by questioning some orthodoxy, the inevitable result will be bad
science. It says something that it took two non-climate scientists to bring
Mr. Michael E. Mann's errors to light. But the important point is this: The world
is being lobbied to place a huge economic bet -- as much as $150 billion a
year -- on the notion that man-made global warming is real. Businesses
are gearing up, at considerable cost, to deal with a new regulatory
environment; complex carbon-trading schemes are in the making. Shouldn't
everyone look very carefully, and honestly, at the science before we jump off
this particular cliff?"
2005 February 21: To: Phil Jones From: Francis Zwiers
Subject: Re: Canadians and the Millennium
Cc: "francis.zwiers"
"Been away for the last week and off again tomorrow for the rest of
this week. I was surprised to see comments from you in WSJ saying that
McIntyre and McKittrick were likely right and the Michael E. Mann reconstruction is
wrong. I hope it is a case of misreporting !"
Phil Jones says "Well, this isn't what I said, and its also not what is
reported in the WJS article. The article quotes me as saying that the
technique preferentially produces hockey sticks (actually, I *think* I said
that it preferentially produces PC1s with hockey stick
shapes, but that's a distinction that may have escaped the reporter - or I may
have miss-spoken). In any case, this does not mean that the general form
of the reconstruction (illustrating the unusual nature of the 20th century) is
wrong - and I went to pains in the interview to also make that point.
The nearest composite reconstruction to MM in the 15th century is MBH98
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes). All
the others have the 15th century cooler than MBH98 (Mann-Bradley-Hughes). There is no way MM
are right in the 15th century. Also Moberg et al (2005) has too much
long-term variability."
2005 February 24: From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re:
Cc: Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Caspar Ammann , "Wahl, Eugene R" ,
Scott Rutherford
"I was afraid this would be spun as bolstering the contrarians, but it
hasn't. In large part due to quotes from you and others pointing out that the
study actually reinforces the key conclusions, etc., and the fact Dick Kerr
showed Keith and Tim's plot showing the scattering of multiple
reconstructions, etc. which takes the focus off "Michael E. Mann" a
bit...Nonetheless, I *am* convinced their methodology is suspect, as the
analysis I sent shows. So I will really appreciate input from Keith,
Tim, and you to make sure the language and wording are appropriate and fair...
2005 March 29: Keep in mind HadCRUT and CRUTEMS relies on the Hadley
Center and CRU for its data. It is therefore 'hockey Stick' driven.
2005 April 26: To: Phil Jones ,"Keith Briffa" From: Tim
Osborn
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE "DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE"
SCARE
"Keith and Phil Jones, you both feature in the latest issue of CCNet:
Federal Reserve Bank has an interesting paer on how important it is to archive
not only the data but the code for empirical papers. While the article looks
mainly at economic research there is also a lesson to be drawn from this paper
about the current state of research for global warming/climate change. One of
the hallmarks of scientific research is that the results can be replicable.
Without this, the results shouldn't be considered valid let alone used for
making policy. However, this is precisely the problem that Steven
McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have run into since looking into the methodology
used by Michael E. Mann, Hughes and Bradely (1998) (MBH98) (Mann-Bradley-Hughes), the paper that came up with
the famous "hockey stick" for temperature reconstructions. For
example, this post here shows that McIntyre was prevented from accessing Michael E. Mann's FTP site. This is supposedly a public site where interested researchers
can download not only the source code, but also the data. This kind of
behavior by Michael E. Mann et. al. is simply unscientific and also rather suspicious.
Why lock out a researcher who is trying to verify your results...do you have
something to hide professors Michael E. Mann, Bradley and Huges? Not only has this
been a problem has this been a problem for McIntyre with regards to MBH98
(Mann-Bradley-Hughes), but
other studies as well. This post at Climate Audit shows that this problem is
actually quite serious. After nearly a year and over 25 emails, Crowley
said in mid-October that he has misplaced the original data and could only
find transformed and smoothed versions. This makes proper data checking
impossible, but I'm planning to do what I can with what he sent. Do I need to
comment on my attitude to the original data being "misplaced"?
Keith Briffa et al. (2001) None of these guys have the least interest in some
one going through their data and seem to hoping that the demands wither away.
I don't see how any policy reliance can be made on this paper with no
available data. Esper et al. (2002) Phil Jones sent me data for
these studies in July 2004, but did not have the weights used in the
calculations, which Michael E. Mann had. Jones thought that the weights did not matter,
but I have found differently. I've tried a few times to get the weights, but
so far have been unsuccessful. My surmise is that the weighting in these
papers is based on correlations to local temperature, as opposed to
MBH98-MBH99 where the weightings are based on correlations to the temperature
PC1 (but this is just speculation right now.) The papers do not describe
the methods in sufficient detail to permit replication. Jacoby and
d'Arrigo (northern treeline). I've got something quite interesting in
progress here. If you look at the original 1989 paper, you will see that
Jacoby "cherry-picked" the 10 "most temperature-sensitive"
sites from 36 studied. I've done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from
persistent red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series,
with the Jacoby northern treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from
simulated hockey sticks. The other 26 sites have not been archived. I've
written to Climatic Change to get them to intervene in getting the data.
Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says that his research is "mission-oriented"
and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a "few good" series.
2005 April 27: Phil Jones forwards it
to Michael E. Mann: "I got this email from McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m
concerned he has the data — sent ages ago. I’ll tell him this, but that’s
all — no computer program. If I can find the program, it is likely to be
hundreds of lines of undocumented FORTRAN!"
Any computer programmer would know that FORTRAN—a computer language so old
that its name is spelt in uppercase, because computers did not have lowercase
letters back then—is very efficient at performing mathematical calculations,
but very obscure to understand if extensive documentation is not provided
throughout the program, and very easy to make mistakes in if the program is
not well-structured and well-documented. So we now know that the
Climatic Research Unit had no policies covering the checking of results, data
archiving, or anything to control the writing and archiving of computer
programs!
Jones continues to reminisce about his FORTRAN program: "I recall the
program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t
replicate the results early on—it is because there was a mathematical
adjustment when there were fewer data sets."
In other words, McIntyre was exactly correct: the data did not match in the
earlier time periods, because Jones’s program—the one that he refuses to
hand over—fiddled with the data. It is remarkable that the only thing
that Jones can remember about this work from seven years previously is that he
had to adjust the data.
Failure to achieve program documentation is just simple bad business practice.
2005 June 15: From: Keith Briffa To: Eystein Jansen
Subject: Re: Fwd: updated MWP figure
attachment To: J Overpeck "Jansen, Eystein " Tim Osborn
Subject: updated MWP figure
"I have been fiddling with the best way to illustrate the stable nature
of the medieval warm period - the attached plot has eight sites that go from
946-1960 in decadal std. dev. units - although small in number there is
a good geographic spread -- four are from the w. hemisphere, four from
the east. I also plot the raw composite of the eight sites and scale it
to the 30-90N decadal temp. record.
this record illustrates how the individual sites are related to the composite
and also why the composite has no dramatically warm MWP -- there is no
dramatically warm clustering of the individual sites. use or lose as
you wish, tom"
This was a common thread throughout the emails, lose data that doesn't fit.
2005 June 23: IPCC ASKED TO COME CLEAN OVER CONTROVERSIAL HOCKEY
STICK STUDIES
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton, Chairman U.S. House of
Representatives June 23, 2005
To: Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change C/O IPCC Secretariat World Meteorological Organization 7 bis Avenue de
La Paix C.P. 2300 Ch- 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland
"Dear Chairman Pachauri: Questions have been raised, according to a
February 14, 2005 article in The Wall Street Journal, about the significance
of methodological flaws and data errors in studies by Michael E. Mannand
co-authors of the historical record of temperatures and climate change. We
understand that these studies of temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores,
corals, etc.) formed the basis for a new finding in the 2001 United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report
(TAR). This finding - that the increase in 20th century northern hemisphere
temperatures is "likely to have been the largest of any century during
the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and
1998 the warmest year" - has since been referenced widely and has become
a prominent feature of the public debate surrounding climate change policy.
However, in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research
Letters, Energy & Environment, among others, researchers question the
results of this work. As these researchers find, based on the available
information, the conclusions concerning temperature histories - and hence
whether warming in the 20th century is actually unprecedented - cannot be
supported by the Michael E. Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand
from the February 14 Journal and these other reports that researchers have
failed to replicate the findings of these studies, in part because of problems
with the underlying data and the calculations used to reach the conclusions.
Questions have also been raised concerning the sharing and dissemination of
the data and methods used to perform the studies. For example, according to
the January 2005 Energy & Environment, the information necessary to
replicate the analyses in the studies has not been made fully available to
researchers upon request. The concerns surrounding these studies reflect
upon the quality and transparency of
federally funded research and of the IPCC review process - two matters of
particular interest to the Committee. For example, one concern relates to
whether IPCC review has been sufficiently robust and independent.
We understand that Michael E. Mann, the lead author of the studies in
question, was also a lead author of the IPCC chapter that assessed and
reported this very same work, and that two co-authors of the studies were also
contributing authors to the same chapter. Given the prominence these studies
were accorded in the IPCC TAR, we seek to learn more about the facts and
circumstances that led to acceptance and prominentuse of
this work in the IPCC TAR and to understand what this controversy indicates
about the data quality of key IPCC studies. In light of the
Committee's jurisdiction over energy policy and certain environmental issues
in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee must have full and
accurate information when considering matters relating to climate change
policy. We open this review because the dispute surrounding these studies
bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon
which climate studies rely and the quality and transparency of analyses used
to support the IPCC assessment process. With the IPCC currently working to
produce a fourth assessment report, addressing questions of quality and
transparency in the underlying analyses
supporting that assessment, both scientific and economic, are of utmost
importance if Congress is eventually going to make policy decisions drawing
from this work. EDITOR'S NOTE: The House of Representatives has also
written to National Science Foundation Director Arden Bement, Michael E. Mann, Dr. Malcolm K. Hughes, and Dr. Raymond S. Bradley, requesting
information regarding their global warming studies"
The email also included nine (9) requests for clarification of non scientific
procedure issues and lack of supporting information. The emails didn't
include the Climate-Gate Gangs response.
2005 June 25: From: Tom Wigley To: Michael Oppenheimer Cc:
"Michael E. Mann" , shs, dlashof, jhansen, mmaccrac, Benjamin D.
Santer1, wigley,
Caspar Ammann
Subject: Re: NEED HELP! (re: Joe Barton, Chairman U.S. House of
Representatives email above)
"There are broader implications of this, so it is important to respond
well. It is a pity you have to be the guinea pig after what you have gone
through already, but you have many supporters. I would not advise a
legal route. (a response to "we seem to back in the days of
McCarthyism in the States. Fortunately, we have some good people who will
represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case scenario, this backfires
on these thugs")... the key point is that the M&M (Stephen McIntyre and
Ross McKitrick) criticisms are unfounded, Although this may be difficult,
remember that this is not really a criticism of you personally, but one aspect
of a criticism of the foundations of global warming science by people both
inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives. As you know,
we suspect that there has been an abuse of the scientific review process at
the journal editor level. The method is to choose reviewers who are
sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse view. Recent papers in GRL (including the
M&M paper) have clearly not been reviewed by appropriate people. We have a
strong suspicion that this is the case, but, of course, no proof because we do
not know *who* the reviewers of these papers have been. Perhaps now is the
time to make this a direct accusation and request (or demand) that this
information be made available. In order to properly defend the good science it
is essential that the reasons for bad science appearing in the
literature be investigated. The lever here is that the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is
suggesting that your papers are bad science and asking (their point 8e) for
the identity of people who reviewed your work. In response, it is completely
fair and justifiable to point out that it is the papers that criticize your
and related work that are bad science, and that, through the Subcommittee you
can request the identities of the reviewers of all of these critical papers --
starting with M&M ( Stephen McIntyre and
Ross McKitrick)."
The best defensive position is an offensive position and to divert
attention. The email goes on to list the Climate-Gate Gang that can help
with this strategy.
2005 June 27: From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Keith Briffa , t.osborn,
Eystein Jansen
Subject: the Med Warm Period Box - Peck comments/edits
"the recent Wall Street Journal editiorial that is creating all the crap
in the US actually showed a time series from the IPCC FAR We need to
move the debate beyond the FAR, SAR and TAR on this issue! it would be
cool to have another figure that made the point about no single synchronous
period warmer than late 20th century. This is where I get soft with respect to
Tom's plot."
Even if Toms data is soft, all the Climate-Gate Gang has to support it at all
cost. If the (MWP) Mediaeval Warming Period is warmer than the 20 the
century then man made global worming fails and research grants dry up.
The infamous 'hockey stick' graph has the same high priority.
Jonathan Overpeck writes to Keith Briffa, Tim
Osborn, and Eystein Jansen, concerned about highly influential early diagrams
first "created" by Hubert Lamb, pioneer of the Climatic Research
unit at the University of East Anglia: I’m sure you saw the recent (to
be infamous) Wall Street Journal editorial—they showed what I think was a
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change First Assessment Report curve —
with the good old Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, etc. (Lamb view?
— I don’t have the First Assessment Report with me). The way to handle the
hockey stick might best be to put it in an historical perspective along with
the older Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change views. First, show your
great figures, discuss them and what went into them, and then—after showing
the state-of-the-art, discuss how much our understanding and view have
changed. In this, simply compare each of the historical views (First
Assessment Report, Second Assessment Report, Third Assessment Report) to the
current view, and while doing so, play down the controversy(s)—especially
the hockey stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in the news
is just that, but those with a real stake in that debate will hopefully get
the point that it doesn’t matter…"
This is a remarkable admission. It was the work of Lamb and others (to be
discussed at greater length shortly) that sparked the fears of climate change
in the first place. Just as these scientists "re-branded" their
claims—from the "Greenhouse Effect" to "Global Warming"
to "Climate Change"—so too did they change their apparently
"rock solid" results, through the First, Second, and Third
Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The
Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age—so well established in
both history and the scientific evidence that these very scientists showed
them clearly on their graphs—gradually became "undesirable", as it
was realized that it would not simply be sufficient to show the planet
warming, but essential to argue that it was unprecedented warming.
Jonathan Overpeck is here effectively
telling his colleagues that "the evidence doesn’t matter"—that
all that is important is that, at any point in time, they had some evidence
that apparently substantiated their claims. That they subsequently discredited
their own evidence is to be swept under the rug!
2005 June 28: A
Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives is investigating
Michael E. Mann’s scientific claims.
Michael E. Mann writes:
"This was predicted—they’re of course trying to make things
impossible for me. I need immediate help regarding recourse for free legal
advice, etc."
Michael Oppenheimer responds: "This is outrageous. I’ll contact
some people who may be able to help right away."
Tom Wigley responds: "I would not advise a legal route. I think
you need to consider this as just another set of referees’ comments and
respond simply, clearly and directly.Although this may be difficult, remember
that this is not really a criticism of you personally, but one aspect of a
criticism of the foundations of global warming science by people both inside
and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives. There may, in fact,
be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there has been an abuse
of the scientific review process at the journal editor level. The method is to
choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse view. Recent
papers in Geophysical Research Letters (including the McIntyre and McKitrick
paper) have clearly not been reviewed by appropriate people. We have a strong
suspicion that this is the case, but, of course, no proof because we do not
know who the reviewers of these papers have been. Perhaps now is the time to
make this a direct accusation and request (or demand) that this information be
made available. In order to properly defend the good science it is essential
that the reasons for bad science appearing in the literature be
investigated. The others who could be added to this email list at this
early stage are Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, your
"co-conspirators"—and perhaps Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim
Osborn. "
Well that answers the question of whether it is fair to call them
"(co-)conspirators": it is their own term for the Climate-Gate Gang!
Tom Wigley continues: "A word of warning. I would be careful
about using other, independent paleoclimatology … work as supporting your
work. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other
results. Although these all show the "hockey stick" shape, the
differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the
greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of
paleoclimatology results and the differences between them as an argument for
dismissing them all."
And that is the final nail in the coffin of the greatest scientific fraud in
the history of mankind: Tom Wigley has personally proven that all
of the temperature estimates for before 1850—the period needed to
show that the warming is "unprecedented"—are so discrepant as to
be inconclusive.
Michael E. Mann, as always,
cares only about himself: "Thanks—yes,
we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States. Fortunately, we have
some good people who will represent us legally without charge; and in the best
case scenario, this backfires on these thugs…The response of the wording is
likely to change dramatically after consultation with lawyers …"
It is remarkable that Michael E. Mann he ignores completely Tom Wigley’s dire warnings
that his results are wrong; his only concern is obtaining free legal advice to
ensure that he does not have to testify before Congress. We note that he is
now drawing in his co-conspirators: his terminology has shifted from
"me" to "us".
2005 June 28: Jonathan Overpeck
indicts his own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) co-authors:
"Also, please note that, in the United States, … Congress is
questioning whether it is ethical for IPCC authors to be using the IPCC to
champion their own work and opinions. Obviously, this questioning is wrong and
scary, but if our goal is to get policy-makers (liberal and conservative
alike) to take our Chapter of the IPCC Report seriously, it will only hurt our
effort if we cite too many of our own papers (perception is often reality).
Please do not cite anything that is not absolutely needed, and please do not
cite your own papers unless they are absolutely needed. This is common sense,
but it isn’t happening. Please be more critical with your citations so we
save needed space, and also so we don’t get perceived as self-serving, or
worse. Again, we can debate this if anyone thinks I’ve gone off the deep
end."
Eystein Jansen does disagree: "Having the fortune of not
being that close to the darker sides of United States politics, I have the
feeling that Peck’s (Jonathan Overpeck) comment concerning referencing
perhaps is a bit too "paranoic"."
2005 July 5: From: Phil Jones To: John Christy
" This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began
from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come
down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.
OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically
significant. Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very
very naïve about climate change, mostly because
of our governments Kyoto stance, and because there is a proliferation of
people with no climate knowledge at all that are prepared to do the gov
bidding. Hence the general populace is at best confused, and at worst,
antagonistic about climate change - for instance, at a recent rural
meeting on drought, attended by politicians and around 2000 farmers, a Qld
collegue - Dr Roger Stone - spoke about drought from a climatologist point of
view, and suggested that climate change may be playing a role in Australias
continuing drought+water problem. He was booed and heckled (and
unfortunately some politicians applauded when this happened) - that's what
we're dealing with due to columists such as the one I sent to you.
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science
could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being
political, it is being selfish.”
A clear admission that Global
warming is mostly political rather than scientific.
2005 July 5: Neville Nicholls, of the
Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne, Australia, asks Phil
Jones: "Do you expect to get
a call from Congress?"
Phil Jones replies:, "I hope
I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I
have a United States Department of Energy grant, and have had this (with Tom
Wigley) for the last 25 years."
Jones concern is that he might lose his and Wigley's American grant.
2005 July 14: From: Jonathan Overpeck To: cddhr, rahmstorf, Bette
Otto-Bleisner , Keith Briffa , joos , olgasolomina, Eystein Jansen, jto
Subject: IMPORTANT - The next steps for chapter 6 enroute to THE FOD
"Hi all - in the last few emails, we have suggested that you serve as
"head" lead authors for the various sections of our chapter.
"Exec Summary and Section 6.1 - JONATHAN OVERPECK and JANSEN EYSTEIN,"
both appear greenhouse gases BIAS.
"Section 6.2 - ,DAVID" H. RIND, NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, greenhouse gases BIAS.
"Section 6.3 - STEFAN" RAHMSTORF", German oceanographer and
climatologist, greenhouse gases BIAS.
"Section 6.4 - BETTE" OTTO-BLIESINER (MWP) Medieval Warming Period,
NCAR, Bolder,Colerado, greenhouse gases BIAS.
"Section 6.5 - KEITH BRIFFA, CRU, East Anglia, specialty tree rings, hockey
stick graph
"Section 6.6 - FORTUNAT" JOOS, University Bern, Switzerland,
greenhouse gases specialty and BIAS
"Box 6.1 - DAVID" H. RIND, NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, greenhouse gases BIAS
"Box 6.2 - FORTUNAT" JOOS, University Bern, Switzerland, greenhouse
gases specialty and BIAS
"Box 6.3 - OLGA" SOLOMINA, Russian Acamedy of Science, glacier and
climate variability, tree rings, morain dating
"Box 6.4 - KEITH" BRIFFA (MWP) Medieval Warming Period,
CRU, East Anglia, specialty tree rings, hockey stick graph
It looks like the lead author's of the IPCC report are stacked?
2005 July 15: From Michael E. Mann, Ph.D. Associate Professor and
Director of Earth System Science Center Department of Meteorology The
Pennsylvania State University to Joe Barton, Chairman House Committee on
Energy and Commerce Ed Whitfield, Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations Washington, D.C.
"This letter responds to your letter of June 23, 2005, which seeks
information on issues relating to my research on the historical record of
temperatures and climate change. (know as the 'Hockey Stick
Chart'). Llet me state that my research findings, which support the
conclusion that the earth’s surface is warming, and that recent warming is
due in large part to human influences, are consistent with the overwhelming
scientific consensus on climate change. The most serious contention in
your letter — namely, that my work has not been subject to replication
because I have failed to make available the underlying research data — is
incorrect.
The question presumes that in order to replicate scientific research, a second
researcher has to have access to exactly the same computer program (or “code”)
as the initial researcher. This premise is false. It also bears emphasis
that my computer program is a private piece of intellectual property, as the
National Science Foundation and its lawyers recognized."
It is noted that the computer program (or “code”) was in fact altered to
'hide the decline'. As included in the leaked emails.
2005 July 17: Jonathan Overpeck wrote: "Keith, Eystein and I
talked and have agreed >that it would be good to hammer home that
available data do not support the concept of a single (or multiple) globally
synchronous (e.g., to the degree that the late 20th century is)
warm events during anyone's definition of Medieval times. We also agreed that
this fig would focus on that issue only, and not Medieval
warmth vs 20th century. This amplitude issue is dealt with in the main
"temps of the last 2K" figs that Tim and Keith produced. But, given
all the misunderstanding and misrepresenting that is going on wrt to the
Medieval Warm Period, we concluded that it's worth the extra space to address
the issue in more than one way - hence the decision to try to do something
along the lines of your figure."
2005 July 18: thanks for remarks - in response to Tom's questions At
18/07/2005, Tom Crowley wrote:
"I am a little unhappy with the emphasis on hemispheric warmth - lets
face it, almost all of the long records are from 30-90N - the question
is: how representative is 30-90N to the rest of the world? for the
20th c. one can do correlations with the instrumental record, but co2 has
almost certainly increased the correlation scale beyond what it was
preanthropogenic.
2005 July 19: From: "Ricardo Villalba" To:
"Jonathan Overpeck" "Edward R. Cook" Cc:
"Keith R. Briffa", eystein.jansen
Subject: Re: the regional section and MWP Figure
"Please, let me know if you want to introduce some changes in the figure.
The opposite phase in the Patagonia-New Zealand records is so clear before
1850, which is consistent with our previous TPI. For instance, in the
instrumental record the 1971 and 1976 are the coolest summer in northern
Patagonian during the past 70 years, but the warmest in New Zealand
reconstruction!! This out of phase relationship between regions in
the Southern Hemisphere points out to the difficulty of using few
records to get a hemispheric average."
2005 July 20: From: Keith Briffa To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Fwd: Re: thoughts and Figure for MWP box
(the email was in capitalized)
Jonathan Overpeck wrote: "SORRY TO SCARE YOU. I **ABSOLUTELY**
AGREE THAT WE MUST AVOID ANY BIAS OR PERCEPTION OF BIAS. MY COMMENT ON
"NAILING" WAS MADE TO MEAN THAT ININFORMED PEOPLE KEEPING COMING
BACK TO THE MWP (Medievel Warming Period), AND DESCRIBING IT FOR WHAT I
BELIEVE IT WASN'T. OUR JOB IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT IT WAS WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF THE DATA. IF THE DATA ARE NOT CLEAR, THEN WE HAVE TO BE NOT CLEAR.
THAT SAID, I THINK TOM'S FIGURE CAPTURED WHAT I HAVE SENSED IS THE MWP FOR A
LONG TIME, AND BASED ON OTHER SOURCES OF INFO - INCLUDING KEITH'S PROSE. THE
IDEA OF A FIGURE, IS THAT FIGURES CAN BE MORE COMPELLING AND CONNECT BETTER
THAN TEXT. ALSO, THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO LOOK AT THE MWP, AND AS LONG AS WE
DON'T INTRODUCE BIAS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WILL DILUTE THE MESSAGE IN THE END,
THE IDEA IS TO SHOW THE MWP IN MORE WAYS THAN TWO (THAT IS, THE EXISTING FIGS
IN THE TEXT THAT KEITH AND TIM MADE)." "The truth is that
there IS a period of relative warmth around the end of the 1st and start of
the 2nd millennium C.E. , but that there are much fewer data to base this
conclusion on (and hence the uncertainty around even our multiple calibrated
multi-proxy reconstructions are wide). The geographical spread of data also
impart a northern (and land) bias in our early proxy data. My
understanding of Tom's rationale with the Figure is that we should show how,
because the timing of maximum pre-20th century warmth is different in
different records, the magnitude of the warmest period (for the Hemisphere ,
or globe, as a whole) is less than the recently observed warmth. YES,
BUT IN A WAY THAT SAYS "LOOK, HERE ARE THE ACTUAL REGIONAL CURVES - CHECK
IT OUT FOR YOURSELF" INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING (IN A SCIENTIFICALLY
MORE STANDARD MANNER - HERE ARE THE VARIOUS, MOST ROBUST, LARGE AREA
RECONSTRUCTIONS. IN MY MIND, THE LATTER (KEITH/TIM FIGS IN THE MAIN TEXT) WILL
BE THE MOST APPEALING/CONVINCING TO PALEOCLIMATE
SCIENTISTS, BUT TOM'S MIGHT HELP THERE, AND CERTAINLY WITH NON-PALEO
SCIENTISTS AND POLICY FOLKS. MIGHT HELP... IF IT DOESN'T NOTHING LOST, BUT IF
IT COULD HURT CONVEYING UNDERSTANDING, THEN ITS BAD TO USE THE NEW FIGURE.....
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT - CAN'T HAVE CONFLICT.....WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT WE ONLY
SHOW THE SERIES FOR THE MWP, SINCE THE COMPARISON TO THE 20TH CENTURY IS DONE
WELL (AND BEST?) IN THE TEXT FIGS (WHICH I'M ATTACHING JUST IN CASE TOM
DOESN'T HAVE, ALONG WITH THE TEXT - IF YOU HAVE TIME, TOM, PLEASE READ COMMENT
ON ANYTHING YOU WISH, BUT CERTAINLY THE LAST 2000 YEARS BIT - ASSUME YOU'LL BE
DOING THIS AT THE REVIEW STAGE ANYHOW...)
ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR
THE PERIOD AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED
- RIGHT? SO SHOULD WE SAY THAT'S THE REASON THEY
ARE NOT SHOWN? OF COURSE, IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA 800 TO 1400 AD, IT
WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, FOCUS ON THE MWP ONLY - THE TOPIC OF THE BOX - AND
SHOW THAT THERE WERE NOT ANY PERIODS WHEN ALL THE RECORDS ALL SHOWED WARMTH -
I.E., OF THE KIND WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW. TWO CENTS WORTH"
Folks keep coming back to MWP because this is the key item that proves Global
Warming is Not Man Made. If MWP is warmer than the 20 century them
Global Warming can't be CO2 driven. Most non-Climate-Gate scientists
believe MWP was warmer than 20 century.
2005 July 23: From: Eystein Jansen To: David Rind
Reply-to: Eystein Jansen Cc: wg1-ar4-ch06
"thanks for the reply. I think your arguments to add some comments of
explanation re Pliocene warmth are convincing and that there is
potential relevance for IPCC concerning lat. heat transport in a
world with less land and sea ice. My concern is that I don't think the text
should be interpreted to imply that the Mid Pliocene was free of Arctic sea
ice and Greenland was ice free. There is evidence from the recent IODP
Central Arctic Drilling (have to check what ref. to use) of sea ice cover
through the Pliocene. I have publishet on IRD evidence for a Greenland ice
sheet of some sort. Concerning THC, N Atlantic data indicate strong presence
of NADW akin to now, but we cannot constrain overturning rate. Both Nordic
Seas an Arctic Ocean was poorly ventilated and deep water formation to feed
overflows was shallover, perhaps due to higher temperature? Instead of
deleting the section I proposed, I suggest changing it as follows: After (Rind
and Chadler 1991) add , "for which available proxy data are
inconclusive", and Instead of writing "absence of land ice",
write " reduced extent of land and sea ice". I will find the best
refs for this on Monday. Cheers"
2005 July 25: From: Tom Crowley To: Jonathan Overpeck
Subject: participation in IPCC
Cc: Keith Briffa , Eystein Jansen
"Hi all, there is another reason why I should not be formally listed as
an LA (Lead Author)- it is my understanding that IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
contributors have to be a little
careful about getting involved in political matters that could be used to
impugn the integrity of the process - well I am starting to do just that, with
the attached commen in Eos, plus some radio interviews where I have been
somewhat pointed in my thoughts. I suppose its still ok to be a
reviewer, but even then you might keep these comments in mind, tom"
2005 July 26: From: Stefan Rahmstorf To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Last Millennium section 6.5 - comments by SR
Cc: wg1-ar4-ch06, Jonathan Overpeck , Eystein Jansen
"(1) About the new proxy reconstructions, the section says: "Most of
these are shown..." in the Figure. This immediately raises the question:
why not all? Which one is not shown? This section will be scrutinised with
great suspicion by some people, so we need to be careful. Can you
clarify which one you left out, and why? Or can we just write: "These are
shown..." That would be much nicer.
(2) Several times you say "simply scaled" - would "scaled"
do as well? The "simply" in this context sounds a bit like we
criticise that.
(3) Is "predictand" a word that everybody knows? I'd never seen it
before.
(4) Now here is my biggest question, that I think we need to discuss in the
whole group. Figure 6.5.2-1 shows simulations of the past millennium,
relative to 1500-1899 means. Is this really the best reference period?
Contra: it differs from how we show the data reconstructions, i.e., relative
to 1961-1990. Everyone knows what that climate actually was, since there
are good instrumental data for 1961-1990, so that it makes sense to look at
changes relative to that period. Nobody knows what the real 1500-1899 mean
was, so this is a fictitious baseline."
2005 July 26: Tim Osborn writes to
Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, and Eystein Jansen:
"As you’ll have seen from Tom
Crowley’s replies to my fairly direct requests for the data that went into
his Medieval Warm Period graph, he seems somehow reluctant to send it to me
and prefers me to find it myself (including spending a week re-assembling a
Mongolian data set). I have no time to do this, so have instead reverted to
using the very similar data that we already had."
It is astounding that even Crowley’s own colleagues were rebuffed in their
requests for the data that went into this important graph, and basically told
to "figure it out yourself". It is therefore not surprising that
independent auditors were met by outright hostility!
2005 July 29: From: Phil Jones To: Tim Osborn, "Tett,
Simon"
Subject: Re: Bristlecones!
Cc: Keith Briffa
Tett, Simon wrote: John Houghton is being quized by bits of the US senate. One
question is "Whats the status of the review of the Michael E. Mann hockey stick
temperature curve? I understand that studies by Stephen McIntyre and
Ross McKitrick suggest that it relied on the statistically insignificant
bristlecone pine. Is the IPCC taking another look at that work, which
forms the basis for much of todays climate change debate?" how many
of the other reconstructions use the bristlecone data?"
2005 August 4: Phil Jones and
Michael E. Mann again demonstrate their real forte: intelligence gathering.
Phil Jones writes: "If you’ve not gone to China yet—you’ll
meet someone called Martin Dukes (?). He’s giving a talk at your session. He
knows about mathematics, etc., but not much about paleoclimatology! He might
need some education, but is probably OK. I have not met him, but Tim has. He
is doing some worked funded by the Dutch government on the "hockey
stick" graph."
Michael E. Mann writes: "Thanks,
yes I’m in China now. …Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I
invited him, because he was working with Stott and coworkers, and so I assumed
that he was legitimate, and not associated with the contrarians. But if he’s
associated with the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have
additional information about him and what he has been up to?"
Phil Jones writes: "He’s
been working with Myles Allen. Tim went to the first meeting of this
Dutch-funded project near Oxford last week. Tim said they were doing
some odd things …The meeting wasn’t that productive, according to Tim.
There was a belief amongst those there that all the trees you used have lost
their low-frequency information (the information needed to estimate long-term
trends). …Tim got the impression that they wanted to find that
Michael E. Mann,
Bradley, and Hughes (the "hockey stick" paper) is wrong. …Martin
isn’t associated with the contrarians, but he’s not in possession of …
all the facts."
Michael E. Mann writes: "Thanks
for the heads-up (warning). I will be prepared for this, then. I thought that
Gabi Hegerl was involved with this guy? Doesn’t she know better? It is
disturbing that she hasn’t set them straight on this."
Phil Jones writes: "Gabi was supposed to be there, but wasn’t
either. I think Gabi isn’t being as objective as she might, because of Tom
Crowley. There is an issue coming up in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Every graph needs uncertainty bars, and having them is all that
matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.
"
2005 August 26: From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR workshop
Reply-to: Michael E. Mann
Cc: Heinz Wanner , Christoph Kull , Keith Briffa , "Michael E. Mann"
, Thorsten Kiefer
" Dear Phil Jones et al, I agree on Mike Evans. I'm afraid I don't agree on
Zorita. He has engaged in some very nasty, and in my opinion
unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues of mine who have
established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he co-published with
von Storch. Given this, I don't believe he can be involved in
constructive dialogue of the sort we're looking for at this workshop. There
are some similarly problematic issues w/ Cubasch, who like von Storch,
who has engaged in inflammatory and ad hominem public commentary. There is no
room for that on any side of the debate. If the Germans need to be
represented here, I would suggest instead someone from the Potsdam group, such
as Eva Bauer, who has been doing some very interesting work on modelling the
climate of the past 2K, mike" " I think (someone correct
me if I'm wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question
marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than
to contribute to concensus and progress."
It's important to have differing opinions if you want to achieve a true
consensus and progress.
I believe this is called blackballing in the industry?
2005 September 24: From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Øyvind Paasche
Subject: Re: Chapter 6 - Submitted Papers]
Cc: Keith Briffa , t.osborn, Eystein Jansen
Attachment:
eystein.jansen Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 To: eystein.jansen, jto From:
Martin Manning
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Chapter 6 - Submitted Papers]
Cc: ssolomon, ipcc-wg1
" Following the release of the first draft of the WG1-AR4 we have had a
response from Steve McIntyre (a name that should ring a bell) regarding
unpublished literature in Chapter 6. He also asks about access to data sets
but that is not an IPCC function so is easily
dealt with. The unpublished papers that he has picked up as not being
available are: Keith Briffa, K.R., T.M. Melvin, V.V. Shishov, and et. al, 2005: Warm
season temperatures across northern Eurasia: a 2000-year tree-ring based
study. Quaternary Science Reviews (In preparation). and Wilson and al.
2005 (mentioned on page 6-31) The first of these was I think meant to be
deleted from the text here and we may have made an error in missing
that. The second is cited but does not appear in the reference list so
we did not pick it up as an unpublished paper that needed to be collected.
Could you please let me know: 1) are drafts for either of these papers
available yet and if so can you send copies to the TSU? 2) how do
you expect to use these references in the second draft - remembering that we
can only use papers that are in press at that time and that the Keith Briffa et al
paper is used quite a bit - e.g. on page 6-29. I am attaching the
correspondence with McIntyre below for your information but the only issues
you need to consider are those above, and we will handle any further
interactions with McIntyre from here. Thanks Martin"
2005 September 29: From: Tim Osborn To: "Rob Wilson" ,
"Rosanne D'Arrigo" druidrd
Subject: Re: Fw: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
Cc: Keith Briffa -------THIS IS A LONG EMAIL BUT VERY
IMPORTANT!-----
"Dear Rob and Rosanne, I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his
position as IPCC reviewer! The data archiving issues are a separate
issue because I think there's no need for the data you used to be publicly
available until the paper is actually published, and I would hope that the
editor would respond appropriately. But the other comments could clearly
influence the editorial/review process and this is very unfair when your paper
has already been reviewed by others. McIntyre could of course submit a
comment after your paper was published if he wished to criticize certain
aspects, and that is the route he should have followed. He tried to stop
publication of a paper that I was a co-author on, Rutherford et al. (2005), by
contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms - fortunately the
editor told him firmly that the route to take was to submit a comment after
publication. However, in our case the paper was already in press.
In your case, with the editor's decision still to be made, there is clearly
more scope for McIntyre to influence the decision in your case - and this
certainly should not happen. Is he going to do this for all papers he
does not quite agree with."
"Stephen McIntyre said "I am a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (IPCC 4AR) and am writing in respect to a submission to your
journal by D'Arrigo et al., entitled "On the Long-Term Context for Late
20th Century Warming." This article was referenced in chapter 6 of the
Draft IPCC 4AR and made available to IPCC reviewers. In the course of my
review, I contacted the senior author, Dr. D'Arrigo, for the FTP location of
the data used in this article or for alternative access to the data. Dr
D'Arrigo categorically refused and I was referred to the journal editor if I
desired recourse. I point out that AGU policies for data citation and
data archiving specifically require that authors provide data citation
according to AGU standards and require that contributors archive data in
permanent archives, such as the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. For
example, the policy states:
"1. Data sets cited in AGU publications must meet the same type of
standards for public access and long-term availability as are applied to
citations to the scientific literature. Thus data cited in AGU publications
must be permanently archived in a data center …
2. Data sets that are available only from the author, through miscellaneous
public network services, or academic, government or commercial institutions
not chartered specifically for archiving data, may not be cited in AGU
publications."
"On page 21 of D'Arrigo et al., there is a listing of "regional
groupings" of data. In some cases, part of the data is archived at WDCP;
in other cases, the data has been collected by the authors, but has not been
archived.
In cases, where the data has been archived, it has not been cited according to
AGU policies. For example, the Torntraesk site is
presumably swed019w, but this is not stated. The Polar Urals site appears to
be a combination of russ021w, russ176w and russ022w, but this is not stated.
The Quebec site appears to be a version of cana036, but a version that differs
from the one archived, as it includes more series. The "Mongolia"
site appears to be the authors' mong003 site, but a different version than the
one archived (which commences at a different date). The "Yukon"
series is a combination of two sites, which are not stated. At least one of
the sites is a different version from the one archived. The Icefields site is
again a different version than the one archived. Other data sets
e.g. Seward, NW North America, Central Alaska, Wrangells, Coast Alaska,
Central NWT, Southern Alaska, have been collected by the authors and are
either not archived at all or archived in obsolete versions. In order
that this submission comply with AGU policies on data archiving, I request
that you require D'Arrigo et al. do (1) provide accurate data citations
complying with AGU policies for all data sets presently archived at WDCP; (2)
archive all "grey" data used in the article.
Methodology
The results of this article depend on methodological details, especially as to
standardization procedures. However, these procedures are not described in
objective or operational terms. I will illustrate some examples below:
Page 21 – "In select cases, a power transform (PT) was applied to
correct for data biases. This bias was assessed by correlation and
residual analysis against both local and large scale temperature
series." In which cases was PT applied and what were the
objective criteria in the correlation and residual analysis, which were used
to determine whether this should be applied,
Page 21 – "Due to differing populations in the TR data, the data-sets
were often grouped into 'common' populations. No one strategy is appropriate
for all data-sets and careful evaluation of each composite data-set was
made." That's nice, but what were the operational criteria which
were used to allocate each case to the 5 different alternative
procedures.
Page 7 – "The standard error of the regression estimate (standard
deviation of the regression residuals) from the full period calibration was
used to generate the 2 sigma error bars and this was also adjusted (inflated)
to account for the change (decrease) in explained variance in each nest."
– The last adjustment is not described in operational terms. Shouldn't the
standard error be realistically measured by the standard deviation from the
verification period residuals?
Page 20. "Successful modeling of paleoclimate data with the high
temperatures of the late 1990s is essential if we are to make robust,
definitive conclusions about past temperature amplitudes and
variability." Abstract – "presently-available paleoclimatic
reconstructions are inadequate for making specific inferences, at hemispheric
scales, about MWP warmth relative to the anthropogenic period and that such
comparisons can only still be made at the local/regional scale." Page 13.
"After this period [mid-1980s], the divergence between the tree-ring and
instrumental data results in weakening of calibration results and failed
verification statistics". The authors contradict these caveats by
proceeding to make a variety of inferences and claims "at hemispheric
scales" about MWP warmth or lack thereof relative to the modern period. A
comparison of their reconstruction to instrumental temperatures is prominently
made in the Abstract, on page 10 and page 14. If the reconstructions are
inadequate for making these inferences, then don't make them."
The Climate-Gate Gang were arrogant, detested peer reviews and didn't want to
expose their poor science. Stephen McIntyre would ultimately have to
resort to (FOIA) Freedom Of Information Act both in the USA and Britain and
was still stonewalled. They even said they would rather destroy the data
than make it public, which they did.
---- THIS WILL EVENTUALLY BE TAUGHT IN EVERY UNIVERSITY IN THE
WORLD.---
2005 September 29: From: Tim Osborn To: Phil Jones , Eystein Jansen ,
Jonathan Overpeck
Subject: McIntyre and D'Arrigo et al (submitted)
Cc: Keith Briffa
"I've already talked about this to Phil Jones and Keith, but for Eystein's and
Peck's benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre
downloading a PDF of a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleo chapter and then
apparently trying to interfere with the editorial process that the paper is
currently going through at JGR. I think this is an abuse of
McIntyre's position as an IPCC reviewer.
Rosanne replied to my email below, to say that they *do* want this taken
further. So...Phil Jones has agreed to forward these messages to Susan Solomon
and Michael Manning."
2005 November 15: Michael E. Mann wrote: "In fact he's (McIntyres)
been wrong about just about every claim he's ever made. He almost had a point
w/ the PCA centering, but as we all know, that doesn't matter at all in the
end. The issue isn't whether or not he's right, as we all well know by now,
but whether his false assertions have enough superficial plausability to get
traction. In this case, they might, so probably good to at least be prepared.
I was told by a journalist Paul Thacker that his poster got prominent
placement, probably not an accident (see forwarded email). I believe that Mike
Schlesinger and David Karoly were there in the same session, so might be worth
checking w/ them. I think Connie Woodhouse and Tom Wigley were also at the
meeting, but not sure...I suspect that this is the first in a line of attacks
(I'm sure Tom C is next in line) that will ultimately get
"published" one way or another. The GRL leak may have been
plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there, but these guys always
have "Climate Research" and "Energy and Environment", and
will go there if necessary. They are telegraphing quite clearly where
they are going w/ all of this... "
Forwarded email
"Stephen McIntyre, Multiproxy studies purporting to show 20th century
uniqueness have been applied by policymakers, but they have received
remarkably little independent critical analysis. Jones et al. [1998] is
a prominent multi-proxy study used by IPCC [2001] and others to affirm the
hockey stick shaped temperature reconstruction of Michael E. Mann et al. [1998].
However, the econstruction of Jones et al. [1998] is based on only 3-4 proxies
in the controversial Medieval Warm Period, including non-arms-length studies
by Keith Briffa et al. [1992] and Keith Briffa et al [1995]. We show that the Polar
Urals data set in Keith Briffa et al [1992] fails to meet a variety of quality
control standards, both in replication and crossdating. The conclusion of Keith Briffa
et al. [1995] that 1032 was the "coldest year" of the
millennium proves to be based on inadequate replication of only 3 tree ring
cores, of which at least 2 are almost certainly incorrectly crossdated. We
show that an ad hoc adjustment to the Tornetrask data set in Keith Briffa et al
[1992] cannot be justified. The individual and combined impact of
defects in the Polar Urals data set and Tornetrask adjustments on the
reconstruction of Jones et al [1998] is substantial and can be seen to have
the effect of modifying what would otherwise indicate a pronounced Medieval
Warm Period in the proxy reconstruction. Inhomogeneity problems in the
Polar Urals and Tornetrask data sets, pertaining to altitude, minimum girth
bias and pith centering bias will also be discussed."
Mike said "Apparently, they gave him a very prominent location, so that
everyone entering the meeting would have seen the poster"
2005 November 15: Senator James M. Inhoffe said: I will discuss
the systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by an
international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective
scientific assessment in the world on the subject of climate change – the
United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. I
will conclude with a series of recommendations as to the minimum changes the
IPCC must make if it is to restore its credibility. When I became
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, one of my
top three priorities was to improve the quality of environmental science used
in public policymaking by taking the politics out of science. The flaws
in the IPCC process began to manifest themselves in the first assessment, but
did so in earnest when the IPCC issued its second assessment report in 1996.
The most obvious was the altering of the document on the central question of
whether man is causing global warming.
Here is what Chapter 8 – the key chapter in the report – stated on this
central question in the final version accepted by reviewing scientists:
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate
change observed to date] to anthropogenic causes.”
But when the final version was published, this and similar phrases in 15
sections of the chapter were deleted or modified. Nearly all the changes
removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that human activities
are having a major impact on global warming.
In the Summary for Policy Makers – which is the only part of the report that
reporters and policy makers read – a single phrase was inserted. It reads:
“The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human
influence on global climate.”
The lead author for Chapter 8, Benjamin D. Santer, should not be held solely
accountable. According to the journal Nature, the changes to the report were
made in the midst of high-level pressure from the Clinton / Gore State
Department to do so. I understand that after the State Department sent a
letter to Sir John Houghton, co-Chairman of the IPCC, Houghton prevailed upon
Benjamin D. Santer to make the changes. The impact was explosive, with media across the
world, including heavyweights such as Peter Jennings, declaring this as proof
that man is responsible for global warming.
A pair of Canadian researchers showed that when random data is fed into
Michael E. Mann’s mathematical construct, it produces a hockey stick more than
99 percent of the time. Yet the IPCC immortalized the hockey stick as the
proof positive of catastrophic global warming.
First, the IPCC is a political institution. Its charter is to support the
efforts of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has the basic
mission of eliminating the threat of global warming. This clearly creates a
conflict of interest with the standard scientific goal of assessing scientific
data in an objective manner. The IPCC process itself illustrates the
problem. The Summary Report for Policymakers is not approved by the scientists
and economists who contribute to the report. It is approved by
Intergovernmental delegates – in short, politicians. It doesn’t take a
leap of imagination to realize that politicians will insist the report support
their political agenda. A typical complaint of scientists and economists is
that the Summary does not adequately reflect the uncertainties associated with
tentative conclusions in the basic report. The uncertainties identified by
contributing authors and reviewers seem to disappear or are downplayed in the
Summary. A corollary of this is that lead authors and the Chair of
the IPCC control too much of the process. The old adage “power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies. Only a handful of individuals
were involved in changing the entire tone of the second assessment. Likewise,
Michael E. Mann was a Chapter lead author in the third assessment.
In fact, the problems identified were so substantial, it led Lord Nigel
Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Member of the Committee, to
recently state: “I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the
institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it would be far
better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all
future international collaboration on the issue of climate change…”
2005 December 1: A new study published this
week in the journal Nature (Dec. 1) turns global warming alarmism on
its head. British researchers reported that the ocean current responsible for
the tropical winds that warm Europe’s climate has decreased by an estimated
30 percent since 1957. The headline of the New Scientist report (Nov.
30) on the study nicely captured its import, “Failing ocean current raises
fear of mini ice age.” Michael E. Mann in reference to above
says "thought you all would be interested in this. Esper et al have
played right into the hands of the contrarians".
The Climate-Gate Gang is not interested in science that goes against Global
Warming caused by man.
2005 December 13: Timothy J Osborn to Phill.Jones
"Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75
thru Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr &
Sept 88, Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing. Also --
more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented by a single box
at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It would be
better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S. I have had to do this in
my code -- but you really should fix the 'raw' gridded data. "
2006 Senator James Mountain Inhofe b-1934 in an interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, said regarding the environmentalist movement, "It kind of reminds... I could use the 'Third Reich', the 'Big Lie' - You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy. Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environment Protection Agency to the Gestapo.
I have to admit I had some of the same analogies as I read through the
Climate-Gate emails. No I don't have any Jewish roots in my
ancestors. Most folks today have little appreciation of the 'Third
Reich' propaganda machine and the 'Big Lie'. We think we are so much
smarter than those 1930's folks but are we, did we learn from the Great
Depression? No we repeated it with the Great Global Recession of
2007-2011 and beyond. Never forget that Global Warming by man made
CO2 is the 'Big Lie' for a 'New World Order' or ' One World Government'.
The 'Third Reich' was for a 'New World Order' or ' One World Government' less
we forget, which we have.
2006 January 10; Here is the
first part of a belittling email from TomWigley of (CRU) to Keth Briffa also
of (CRU) "Thanx for this.
Interesting. However, I do not think your response is very good. Further,
there are grammatical and text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled
McKitrick wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off. Typical of
TomWigley’s patronizing way of talking to wayward CRU members. As it
is, your verbosity will leave any reader lost. There are some problems still.
I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal. Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of
the three chronologies at issue? Or did a reindeer crap next to one of
the trees? I really think you have to do (and can do) a better job in
combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature, you still have a chance
to improve it. Personally, I think it would be good for it to appear since,
with an improved response, you can
make MM look like ignorant idiots." MM = McIntyre & McKitrick
those Canadian critics.
2006 January 19: From: Jonathan Overpeck To: Fortunat Joos
Subject: Re: Millennium simulations
Cc: Eystein Jansen , t.osborn, Keith Briffa
"I got the sense from Susan that she'd love to see good old raw ice core
data, but I think it makes more sense for Tim
and Keith to use what you've sent. It is based on multiple ice cores, and it
provides some consistence with our modeling figs."
The Climate-Gate Gang seems to have problems in using (releasing) raw data.
2006 February 3: Peck and Eystein Jansen to Keith Briffa
"we are having trouble to express the real messa