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
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t think it will be on British news channels, it’s not really a story unless you’re a sceptic, and even if you were it’s illegal to use stolen e-mails in the media. The same will apply for the Information Commissioner, although prime facie evidence exists that the UAE up to the Vice Chancellor were complicit in avoiding providing information under the FOIA they cannot act upon it on the basis of the stolen e-mails. In any event it there has to be some doubt about the role of the Information Commissioner as Jones says he, the IC, provided advice on how to avoid providing the data requested. That may be the scandal that unravels it, if indeed it’s true, but you need a senior politician to challenge the IC, very difficult.
It looks like the only honest scientist was Briffa – who wielded to the pressure of the agenda in the end. Otherwise, those “leading scientists” , particularly Jones write with the worst parlance of activists than scientists.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/11/an-anonymous-hacker-has-broken.html
“The emails could prove to be extremely damaging to the reputation of the scientists and the robustness of their research if they are revealed to be authentic. “
Reading these e-mail exchanges, like those celebrating the death of John Daly, makes me want to vomit.
Surely the law is being broken somewhere – big time – in all of this.
Also are not the bona fides and integrity of McIntyre et al all being traduced as an excuse for withholding FoI requests?
These lists are very important, so journalists can pick up quickly. I’ve made one similar, with some new messages at http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/11/rolo-compressor-de-verdades.html
More would be welcome, especially considering legal aspects, which at least Jones and Mann have clearly broken.
Ecotretas
The only downside to all this is Dear Leader’s apparatchiks will take the lesson as ‘destroy the evidence’.
M White: Feedback and Points of View are a waste of time. The BBC tells you thet the BBC is always right. Complaints to the BBC about bias go unheaded. That’s based on my own and experience and that of friends and colleagues. The BBC is effectively run by government lackeys. The DG gets paid a fortune (and don’t forget those big bonuses and expense accounts) for being no more than a tame bureaucrat. Nobody at the BBC will rock the boat yet.
Re: JASmith (02:52:40) :
What statistical methods does Gavin use to determine if a post is signal or noise? Where is the code? Does he use similar methods to the hockey stick production line?
Interested readers would like know 😉
This is my open statement to the climate swindlers at CRUGATE:
WE’RE COMING AFTER YOU!
YOU CAN RUN, DUCK, & HIDE ALL YOU WANT.
BUT WE WILL NOT STOP. WE’RE CHARGING HARDER THAN EVER BEFORE NOW. OUR NUMBERS ARE HUGE AND THEY ARE GROWING. YOU’RE ON THE RUN, AND WE WILL DO WHAT ARMIES DO WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR OPPONENTS ON THE RUN. THAT’S RIGHT – IT’S GONNA BE REAL MESSY FOR YOU.
AND LAWSUITS ARE ON THE WAY.
YOU’RE GONNA BE ANSWERING SO MANY QUESTIONS ON THE HOT SEAT THAT YOU’RE GONNA THINK FOR ONCE THAT MANN’S BS HS IS ACTUALLY REAL. WE’RE GONNA DEMAND ACTION FROM POLITICIANS, THE MEDIA IS CATCHING ON TO WHAT YOU REALLY ARE. WE WILL NOT STOP. THIS IS GROWING EXPONENTIALLY. YOU LIKE HOCKEY STICKS? HOW DO YOU LIKE THIS ONE? HAVE YOU SEEN THE TRAFFIC ON OUR BLOGS?
WELL, YOU AINT SEEN NOTHING YET.
THEM TIP JARS ARE ABOUT TO GROW INTO WAR CHESTS.
YOU DREW FIRST BLOOD – NOT US.
LET’S GET IT ON!
Below is an attempt to find out who is reviewing a Science paper- so that a coordinated reply can be sent. this is a no no.
Filename: 1077829152.txt
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Crap Papers
Date: Thu Feb 26 15:59:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
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 !! We added lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review to do.
Sent Ben the Soon et al. paper and he wonders who reviews these sorts of things. Says GRL hasn’t a clue with editors or reviewers. By chance they seem to have got the right person with the one just received.
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 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 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.
Cheers
Phil
“under the FOIA they cannot act upon it on the basis of the stolen e-mails”
Which isn’t a problem. Once you know what emails you’re looking for, you submit an FOI request to obtain them legitimately.
The potential for litigation concerning CRUGate is considerable. I seriously doubt with Reid and Pelosi running things that Congress will investigate potential fraud; but if any scientists involced in the ongoing “debates” suffered loss of positions (income), funding (again income), or reputation, I can see cause for civil litigation. And since, these people used public emails, public file servers, etc… destroying documents or “hiding” them is a felony.
“Which isn’t a problem. Once you know what emails you’re looking for, you submit an FOI request to obtain them legitimately.”
Infact, the MSM might be holding back to do just that. The real story might properly hit in a few months time.
The one thing that I haven’t seen discussed is the potential impact that these revelations will have on the stock markets around the world, once the high roller investors begin to rethink those billions of dollars of “green” investments that have sprouted up since the release of IPCC AR4 and related. Most of those investments have explicitly or implicitly relied on the “truthiness” of AGW. If that is now potentially in the dumper those investments won’t be worth a dead polar bear.
Should be an interesting week on the street.
List of climate change scientists and their citations.
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/
Noticed this on http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/20/lawrence-solomon-what-she-didn-t-ask.aspx
And still the scandals keep on coming! Very interesting piece here by American Thinker about what the e-mails reveal about the CRU attitude to funding.
scahttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html
I just did a google search for “CRU climate fraud” after checking the foxnews web site, also NYT and the WAPost without seeing much of any of this in any of these places.
This is not going to have an affect until this makes regular play in the MSM. Most people do not frequent such sites as this and only get their news from the alphabet networks or the newspapers. As long as those sources keep quiet, this will all blow over. I’ll be impressed when a friend who has no connection with science in general comments about this case to me; then I’ll know this has truly seeped out into where it needs to be.
CRU emails are but the tip of a deep-seated and cancerous tumor that has been silently growing on the scientific community at least since the time of the Apollo Mission to the Moon in 1969.
Success at using dishonest means to feed greed only increased the appetite for more grant funds. Over my research career, which began in 1960, I have personally seen:
1. NASA and its underlings pretend ignorance of mass fractionation in the Sun – a natural process that selectively moves lightweight elements like H and He into a thin veneer covering its surface. H is element #1; He is element #2; The solar surface is 91% H and 9% He.
2. Directors of the Lunar Science Institute deny clear empirical evidence that the Sun sorts neon isotopes by mass and changes the Ne-20/Ne-22 ratio from 15 to 14 to 13 to 12, to 11, to . . . . 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and then claim to have discovered primordial neon components (Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, Ne-D, Ne-E, etc.) with Ne-20/Ne-22 = 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, . . . . 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
3. A current Secretary of the Department of Energy that pretends to be unaware of repulsive interactions between neutrons – the primary energy source of the Sun and the cosmos.
I certainly would not like to be in President Obama’s place and realize today that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has been in bed with self-serving politicians and totally destroyed the reliability of the scientific community that the government and the American people fund to protect our national security.
That’s my opinion,
Oliver K. Manuel
Re: geronimo (04:46:38) :
Whats makes you think it is illegal for a journalist to use stolen emails? I haven’t read of a single case of a journalist being taken to court for using the contents of a stolen email. I have read of journalists being prosecuted for stealing media content, but not for using it.
There is also no evidence that the emails were stolen as opposed to leaked and there are laws in the UK that might actually protect the person who leaked the emails (SM did a post on the CA mirror about it).
You are thinking of “Fruit of the poison tree” whereby authorities cant use evidence obtained illegally. This is true but only applies to illegal acts the authorities commit. This means that, for example, the authorities can not break into your house and prosecute you for anything illegal they find there. If a burglar breaks in, finds something and reports it then they can prosecute you because it was not the authorities who committed the burglary
All Your Emails Are Belong To Us
I should have added to the above post that I vaguely remember an incident in the early 80s where a burglar stole a video recorder and tapes. He found child porn on the tapes and was so disgusted he went to the police with the evidence. The householder was successfully prosecuted.
Phil Clarke:
There you wrote:
From the dictionary:
and:
Given this, the fact that the 1K record does include the MWP, as well as the the fact that they put both “contain” and “MWP” in quotes, I am left in no doubt as to the true meaning of that statement.
On the issue of Mike M. in congress claiming he never fused real and proxy data, there is very clear evidence he lied in his congressional testimony.
Kudos to Bishop Hill for his work and excellent summary presentation of the key CRU emails. It makes it much easier for casual readers to get to and focus on the most egregious cases.
And I agree with previous comments:
”Climategate” says it best.