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.


The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
272 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert
November 22, 2009 6:32 am

More fun than a barrel of monkeys.
Some years ago I wrote that I trust Vince, the Sham Wow guy, more than I trust the preeminent IPCC scientists that are supposed to be guarding our truth.
Since that time Vince has retained his superior position even though he has apparently engaged in a Hannibal Lecter exchange with a hooker.
Could the bar be set any lower?

Bruce Cobb
November 22, 2009 6:33 am

Let the Climategate tricksters, frauds, and liars reap the whirlwind.
Phil Jones would be wise to resign, though I haven’t seen any confirmation that he is.

groweg
November 22, 2009 6:39 am

Science is supposed to be about furthering truth, not twisting and suppressing it. The e-mails released read like they were written by organized crime figures, not by scientists.

Wansbeck
November 22, 2009 6:49 am

Maybe the tabloids could have some fun, e.g:
CLIMATE GHOUL GORGES ON PUBLIC FUNDS
Leaked correspondence suggests that a prominent climate scientist who found the death of an opponent ‘cheering’ has received more than £13 Million of taxpayers cash.
While UK residents are being urged to give up their cars to save the planet, scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia have been jetting off to exotic locations for conferences.
The leaked correspondence indicates that travel schedules have been arranged to allow ‘quality time’ for CRU scientists and that UK taxpayers’ money has been given to Russian colleagues in a manner that allowed them to benefit from tax avoidance.

hunter
November 22, 2009 6:50 am

One important way skeptics can help in making sure this scandal is properly treated is to participate at major media comment sites.
Here is one for the Boston Globe:
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1213483&srvc=business&position=recent

philw1776
November 22, 2009 6:58 am

What an excellent summary of the problematical emails. I had not realized the pervasive pattern of cover up of diverse scientific opinion untill I read Bishop Hill’s summary. This should get forwarded to the last surviving print media.

Henry chance
November 22, 2009 7:02 am

Bullying thrives in sneaky and clandestine moves. I suspect some of the listed parties are in great fear of confrontation at Copenhagen.
This will be discussed at copenhagen whether they like it or not.

climate skeptic
November 22, 2009 7:13 am

A good summary of the findings from the emails and data (taken from elsewhere from “Just an Engineer” post on theairvent) is below. I thought it an excellent summary of what has been revealed.
These E-mails suggest – not prove, but suggest:
1) efforts to manipulate data to conform to a certain viewpoint
2) efforts to hide data from those who would review their work critically
3) a conspiracy to dodge freedom of information requests and a conspiracy to delete data that would be so requested
4) a conspiracy to prevent publication of contrasting view points and a conspiracy to punish those who don’t play along
5) an unseemly PR effort via elements of the press and certain websites.
Here in England, the BBC that I fund via a compulsary tax (which if I don’t pay I face imprisonment) are refusing to allow people to post on their environment / climate change blogs. Surprise surprise, as they are fully in the tank in terms of supporting man made global warming.

November 22, 2009 7:17 am

Phil Clarke (03:47:06) :
I did so for the first 15 and almost without exception it does not support the claims the Bishop makes.
I absolutely agree. The intro says that Hill is a careful and succinct writer, but much of this is just sloppy. There’s too much to fisk in total but just starting at the top:
1. Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation.
No, he didn’t. He wrote to complain that SBC was circulating an email making allegations about a member of his staff, which seems quite appropriate. In his final sentence he wrote that while he realised SBC had retired, he was directing his complaint to UH because she was using that affiliation. He nowhere says that she should be stopped from using that affiliation.
2. Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers. No, he doesn’t. He says “Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this?”. Well, he may have been wrong about the takeover. But his proposed response is to urge people not to send papers to it, and to complain to the editors. Is that a sinister “discussion of how to destroy a journal”?
3. Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
He didn’t say that at all. He said “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.” If there is evidence of such a signal, that’s an entirely reasonable thing to do. Does BH have any evidence that there is no such signal? He says he “usually” stops there – is there any indication that he failed to explain why in his publications?
And so on. This is not “careful and succinct writing”. It is succinct only because it omits to quote what the email authors actually said.

fred
November 22, 2009 7:19 am

Two things stand out in my mind.
1. What a debt we owe to people like Anthony, Bishop Hill, and many others, but most especially Steve McIntyre, for the work they’ve done. McIntyre especially because of his perseverance in pushing for the data through FoI even when the “team” was trying to thwart him.
2. The silence of the media is amazing. This would not be happening without the freedom of the internet. Don’t ever let them take away that freedom. Americans, write your Congresscritters. Europeans, you are on the front line of the effort to control the internet and you must resist.
The first freedom is the freedom of speech, without it there are no others.

A.Syme
November 22, 2009 7:22 am

It’s going to be interesting to see how this all plays out in Copenhagen. The 2nd world countries will have a field day with the knowledge that the climate data has been faked.
It seems that each web site that has this info on it has a supporter for the hockey stick crowed trying to do damage control.

BarryW
November 22, 2009 7:24 am

Look, they just haven’t had time to get the right spin on it. Clintonistas kept saying “it’s just about sex” when the real issue was perjury during a civil trial over sexual harassment. They just haven’t found the right catch phrase to use. The MSM will pick it up like a shot when they do.

Gene Nemetz
November 22, 2009 7:25 am

Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”
I have no recollection, sir…I have no recollection, ma’am…I have no recollection, Senator…..

P Wilson
November 22, 2009 7:27 am

Here’s a Q for Phil clarke:
What did Keith Briffa mean when he wrote with some scepticism that temperatures 1000 years ago were probably as warm as today? He expresses grave doubts about the reliability of tree rings as a temperature proxy.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt
and what does he really mean when he writes that 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.”
and what does Mann really mean when he writes “manufactured biases/etc remains high priority”?
PS. Make it good!

MattN
November 22, 2009 7:30 am

Good stuff so far. It’s going to take a while to fully get our hands around all this. But so far, it is obviously very damning stuff. People will lose jobs over this. And, IMO, it won’t be too soon….

fabron
November 22, 2009 7:30 am

At least one honest AGW scientist
From: Keith Briffa To: frank.oldfield@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Frank I do not recall what Kyrdianov has worked on – sorry. However, ………
………………. Yes I know I’m a *anker!
Keith

Gene Nemetz
November 22, 2009 7:35 am

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.
It’s just robust discussion between scientists that’s been taken out of context.

Gene Nemetz
November 22, 2009 7:42 am

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.
Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick
Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’.
Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.
Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.
Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann….
Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?].
Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged
Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.
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.
Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.
Robust scientific work being done by Michael Mann.

Douglas DC
November 22, 2009 7:43 am

Phillip Bratby (01:11:27) :
Cover up = damage control
-But the Cat Box is very full…

philincalifornia
November 22, 2009 7:49 am

From Roger Harrabin yesterday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371597.stm
“The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU. Despite continuing uncertainties in some areas of climate science, they say officially that their overall confidence that humans are warming the climate is now more than 90%.
One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at 99%.”
_______________________
Since there is no “comments” section associated with this article from the Ministry of Global Warming Propaganda and Taxation a.k.a. the BBC, I’ll ask the question here:
“One leading figure”, if you’re not a figment of Harrabin’s imagination, please post all the links to data from which you have derived your 99% confidence level, along with the mathematical derivation of this figure.
Please feel free to remain anonymous or non-existent.

Bill Illis
November 22, 2009 7:51 am

Dr. Hans von Storch comments on his webpage.
“… I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or assessment activities like IPCC.
For an account of our role in the hockey-stick deconstruction, refer to our 2007-article on the nature blog. An account on the problem around “Climate Research” is provided on this web-page of mine from 2003. ”
http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/

November 22, 2009 7:55 am

What a pity that MIchael Crichton did not live a couple of more years. He would have died a much happier man, if one can die happy.

imapopulist
November 22, 2009 8:04 am

It is amazing how a few immoral and unethical individuals can corrupt an entire field of science. The worst suspicions of the climate skeptics have been proved to be true. We have wasted billions on research for results that now have no credibility at all.

lars Grublesen
November 22, 2009 8:04 am

Fore those who do not fully can connect the dots here all these e-mail are much more easier to understand if you have watched this documentary first.
Then the picture and timeline becomes much more clearer.
http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2
Note. Available with english subs.
I also see in the email correspondense between the Norwegian “Bjerknes Center” with their leader Eystein Jansen and key players in the “Hockey Team”. The few i have read are about funding ad lobbying for it. A quite fasinating web this is..