Bishop Hill's compendium of CRU email issues

For those of you who don’t know of the blog Bishop Hill, let me say that he is a succinct and careful writer who has earned praise from many (including myself and Steve McIntyre) in taking a difficult niche subject such as the Hockey Stick and paleoclimatology and condensed into into a readable form for the layman. He’s also writing a book about it called: The Hockey Stick Illusion

In his latest post, Climate Cuttings 33, he gives a list of interesting issues he’s identified. I’ve reproduced it below for WUWT readers to consider. Be sure to visit his blog and have a look and drop an encouraging word. – Anthony

Climate cuttings 33

If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

  • Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
  • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
  • Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
  • Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
  • Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
  • Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
  • Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
  • Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
  • Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
  • Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
  • Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
  • Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
  • Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
  • Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
  • Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
  • Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
  • Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
  • Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
  • Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
  • Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
  • Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
  • Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
  • Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
  • Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
  • Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
  • Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
  • Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
  • Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]
  • Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
  • Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
  • Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
  • Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
  • Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
  • Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
  • Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
  • Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
  • Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
  • Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
  • Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
  • Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
  • Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
  • Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
  • Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
  • David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
  • Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
  • Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
  • Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

Sponsored IT training links:

If looking for 646-205 exam help then head to 350-030 training program for guaranteed success and get free download link for next 640-863 exam.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

272 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
M White
November 22, 2009 2:16 am

Phillip Bratby (01:10:19) :
“The BBC is hard at it. Richard Black’s blog has shut up shop. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack . That doyen of investigative journalism [sark – he toes the BBC line], Roger Harrabin has a deep throat at CRU to provide the truth. He also relies on RealClimate and Gavin for the real outside view on events! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm for the dismissive cover-up.”
For those who have something to say to the BBC about this episode you may like to look at these two sites
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/feedback/contact/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview
Feedback radio, Points of view TV.

dodgy geezer
November 22, 2009 2:28 am

Many of the ‘data manipulation’ emails can be ‘explained away’ by claiming that all we are seeing here is ‘robust scientific criticism’. Though they indicate the closed mindset of the Team, they may not be obviously illegal.
Where the Team ARE vulnerable is with the emails which indicate that they are working to stop publication of papers which do not support Global Warming, and that they are working to remove people who do not support their views from IPCC working parties and other official posts.
All that will cause a major scandal if exposed, and will certainly strike a chord with other scientists. Few scientists would mind someone trying to ‘prove their theory’, but all of them would be very unhappy to learn that, if they do not hold the right views, they are barred from career advancement….

Barry Foster
November 22, 2009 2:38 am

There is indeed lock-down going on over at the BBC, as this impacts them also with their solid promotion of AGW. However, it’s still not being reported over here either on TV or radio news. There’s hardly anything about it even on newspaper web sites. It’s like being in China!
I love the internet – you can find out what’s going on and by-pass the TV stations like the BBC (where once you would have gone to!) and the newspapers and find out for yourself thanks to people like McIntyre, Watts and Bishop Hill – amongst many, many others. Seriously (and I wouldn’t have thought I would ever say this) where would we be without the internet now? In the dark!
My comment on a BBC forum has been removed before it even got on the page! This despite the fact I was very careful not to break any forum rules. Like I said, China!

Cognog2
November 22, 2009 2:44 am

If these e-mails are genuine, it is appalling to think that the UK Climate Change Act rests upon the deliberations of this devious bunch.
Perhaps Ed Miliband our Energy Minister would care to comment?

November 22, 2009 2:46 am

Dr Tim Ball discusses the implications of the leaked files on YouTube (and they’re pretty damning). 10 minutes of enlightenment. Go to the Corbett Report on YouTube.

JASmith
November 22, 2009 2:52 am

Seems that the way Gavin runs his blog is completely in line with the way Mann, Briffa & Jones do their science…. Maximise the signal to noise ratio…. LMAO
That’s really easy to do when you simply make up the signal and reject the noise you don’t like….
_______________________________________________________________________
[Response: This is a moderated site, and always has been. We do screen out a lot of the random squawk of the blogosphere and the baseless accusations of malfeasance that are commonplace on open forums. We do that unapologetically in order to maximise the signal-to-noise ratio in threads……… – gavin]

Donald (Australia)
November 22, 2009 2:52 am

Surely there is more than enough here to demand the surrender of passports by this “team” and for them to be told to not leave town !
Proceedings need to begin before there is further destruction of evidence. Lock the offices and forbid any further inter-communication.
A Royal Commission, followed by any prosecutions, must follow.
And let’s hear Prince Charles lead the call for the honourable course of action!

November 22, 2009 3:00 am

Nice job from Bishop Hill. Getting a digestible summary to the MSM is a priority at this point. Plaster the link everywhere.
Make sure Christopher Booker (the UK journalist) is aware of the situation. He probably has the best understanding of the issues.
The UK press have been a bit low key, but this might be for legal reasons. Hopefully the big splash will come.

Thomas Gough
November 22, 2009 3:20 am

Re donations to WUWT ( kmye (01:45:17) and Crosspatch (#1) ) I did so yesterday. I have been coming here regularly for 2 years and have been much informed as I believe many of us have. Not forgetting CA and the likes of Bishop Hill. I suggest that when the history of (the collapse of) AGW comes to be written the important part played by sites such as these will be fully acknowledged.

Phil Clarke
November 22, 2009 3:47 am

How many have actually read the text on which these one-line summaries are based? I did so for the first 15 and almost without exception it does not support the claims the Bishop makes. In some cases the scientists are saying the opposite of what is implied, e.g. ‘contain’ the MWP is actually used in the sense of ‘include’ the MWP, Tom Wigley did not say that the truth of his claim didn’t matter, and so on.
I posted supporting quotes in the ‘CRU hacked’ thread.

P Gosselin
November 22, 2009 4:02 am

I sent an e-mail asking the Landmark Legal Foundation to look into this.
Maybe they’ll take this up if they get more requests to do so.

dearieme
November 22, 2009 4:10 am

“The VC is also aware of what is going on”: “VC” = Vice Chancellor i.e. the head of the University. He’ll be just delighted to be mentioned in the context of what might conceivably prove to be criminal action. Just delighted.

M White
November 22, 2009 4:13 am

google
Results 61 – 70 of about 53,600 for climategate

JimB
November 22, 2009 4:19 am

This is just one more fine example of how these people hold themselves above the law(s):
“Ben,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.”
I’m sorry…YOU don’t get to decide when/where the LAW applies. YOU don’t get to decide WHICH FOI requests you honor, based on who originated the request. And the fact that YOU showed others in your organization a few posts from CA and then they all supported you, simply makes them accomplices and lemmings.
I’d like to be able to say that the arrogance is amazing…but sadly, it actually is right in line with what we’ve all come to expect.
JimB

michael
November 22, 2009 4:20 am

someone shoul organise a big DEMO at Copenhagen!

PhilW
November 22, 2009 4:23 am

Mark Hind (01:45:56) :
PS, and I still havent seen it on british news channels yet.
BBC don’t want to spoil their party…………..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229695/BBC-dispatches-35-staff-climate-talks–creating-carbon-African-village-does-year.html

November 22, 2009 4:36 am

HAts off to Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre etc as well as many others, Thankyou for your ongoing work over the years keeping us updated and informed!

November 22, 2009 4:36 am

Robert van der Veeke (01:45:31) :
Yes its an important email you present there.
And this might be the core of it all:
From this and other mails its so obvious that we have this little group of scientist that cooperates very very close. “Include me in” etc.
They have a common strategy, a plan , a goal.
FACT: IPCC is OVERREPRESENTING RESULTS FROM THIS GROUP.
Again and again IPCC chooses specifically historical temperature data from this specific group. There are SO many other scientists in the field.
So what to do:
Create 2 graphs of historical temperatures.
1) result from this group
2) result from ALL other scientists in the field.
The difference here will show if IPCC has chosen a balanced view of the MWP or not.
I will myself start soon to make such a graph, but hope others will examine this too.

geronimo
November 22, 2009 4:39 am

It will take time for this thing to go through the system. First off the strategy will be no comment. No comment means no cross examination. Then they will say these are interpersonal e-mails taken out of context. The politicians, with the exception of Inhofe, and Smokin’ Joe Barton in the US will remain silent because they are all now on board the AGW train and plans are being made to spend the carbon taxes. As well as this they aren’t likely to want things investigated too thoroughly because they will look foolish for being taken in.
On top of this the whole Green movement isn’t going to be swayed either, they believe humans are ruining the planet and won’t be disturbed by people lying and plotting to get that top of the political agenda. It’s going to take a long time.
The really scary bit is that Phil Jones is saying he went to the UK Information Commissioner to get advice on how NOT to provide information under the FOIA and GOT the advice.
It will be an uphill struggle.

Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck
November 22, 2009 4:40 am

An important addition to this one!!!!!
“Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122) ”
It is not just the Phil requests information be deleted, it is also that Mann acted on the request [“I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP.]
The Sqeuence:
From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxx
To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx, “raymond s. bradley” rbradley@xxxx
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: “Caspar Ammann” ammann@xxxx
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way around this.
………………………………………………
From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxx
To: t.osborn@xxxx “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” David.Palmer@xxxx
Subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 – IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process [FOI_08-23]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:13:35 +0100
Cc: “Briffa Keith Prof ” k.briffa@xxxx, “Mcgarvie Michael Mr ” m.mcgarvie@xxx
Dave,
Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA, Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn’t get any additional comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith should say that he didn’t get any papers through the IPCC process.either.
I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn’t get any. What we did get were papers sent to us directly – so not through IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland.
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments.
As for (3) Tim has asked Caspar, but Caspar is one of the worse responders to emails known. I doubt either he emailed Keith or Keith emailed him related to IPCC.
…………………………………………….
From: Phil Jones p.jones@x
To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
…………
From: Michael Mann mann@xxx
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xx
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxx
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
talk to you later,
mike
…………………

Otter
November 22, 2009 4:43 am

I have heard that Phil Jones is resigning his post. Can anyone verify that?

BR
November 22, 2009 4:45 am

Let’s not call it CRUgate; too obscure. Climategate is better.