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.
Something tells me there is a little detail about why the emails/data were lifted.
Mann, Jones, Wigley, Senter, Trenberth et al are being tossed under the bus, and I think they know it.
I wonder what Monckton thinks of all this.
Andrew Revkin
has been attacked a few times in recent comments.
Reading through emails related to him, I have the impression that his queries are ligitimate though the cordial tone with these individuals is disturbing. However, I would still regard this as a professional attitude to gather information. And. don’t forget, Revkin did also contact McIntyre about his views, though his publishing was far from balanced, but not onesided.
So Revkin is in no way comparable to BBCs Black or even notorious Monbiot or Borenstein.
I don’t know what the outcome of this will be on his opinions but I would wonder if there is no significant change. If not, other poster here are proven right.
In the light of all of this he may be
Very well done Bishop. A summary like this is helpful.
A suggestion – Since this will get wider circulation, would you please
consider adding definitions for your acronyms if you are not going to
write them out. Perhaps adding them in at the top somewhere for people
to reference would be enough, rather than putting them into each summary.
Items like FOI may be clear to many people, but since it is important that
readers understand what they were trying to do, spelling out the definitions somewhere may be helpful. That way those who are not familiar with the alphabet soup will be able to follow along too.
Again, nicely done. Regards
“The period after 1960 was not used to avoid bias in the regression coefficients that could be generated by an anomalous decline in tree density measurements over recent decades that is not forced by temperature” – Nick Stokes quoting Briffa 2001.
In other words, from 1960 onwards their “tree thermometer” embarrassingly insisted on telling them that temperatures were falling. And so rather than reconsider whether their entire method might be critically broken, they just ignored the bits which didn’t work and called them “anomalous”.
I work with models for a living. When I find they produce “anomalous” results in any area, then I go hunting for the cause – I *don’t* just replace them with other data I happen to have lying around. Because a flaw in the output means there must be either a flaw in the inputs or a flaw in the model.
But then I’m a scientist and we do these things because otherwise it wouldn’t be science. These climate “experts” apparently don’t. From which one draws an obvious conclusion…
(I wonder what would have happened if the anomaly had produced temperatures that were *higher* than those observed for post-1960. Somehow I think they’d have kept them then…)
If the media in the US doesn’t run this soon , I think it will be as a result of two problems : 1) They don’t really understand the science behind AGW – they merely regurgitate what they’have been told , the scarier the better . 2) Since Cap and Trade appears to be on the backburner for the immediate future , the story just doesn’t “pop” .
On the other hand , it might just fly on Capitol Hill . Maybe later than sooner , though as health care is the more pressing issue . Remember that a lot of Representatives voted for C&T rather reluctently and subsequently took a shellacking for it back home . Many in the Senate are aware of this , and would hopefully welcome any excuse to run from climate change legislation .
Of course , the best case scenario would be that Congress would start yet another series of investigations into the entire matter . One would hope that they might even call into question the EPA’s endangerment finding , which is based primarily on the IPCC’s assements .
Phil Clarke (10:13:07) :
P Wilson: 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
I would speculate that 10 years ago, when the mail was written, that was his opinion. There has been a lot more research published in the intervening decade. As facts change, so do opinions.”
You don’t get out much, do you. If that had been his opinion then, he would not have written all that he had earlier than 10 years ago.
P Gosselin (09:31:50) :
Is it a deliberate cover up?
Or do they not trust the Germans (or British for that matter) with the bare and ugly truth?
I fear the EU cannot bear to hear what they don’t like.
If the Germans were to become overwhelmingly sceptical, well I can see they (the EU politburo/commission) would truly be angst geritten.
Donald from Australia wrote:
“A Royal Commission, followed by any prosecutions, must follow.”
I suggest that it is normally the other way round.
First an investigation, then – as appropriate (nd I think, looking at this, that here it may be appropriate) – prosecutions. After the court case, and appeals, a Royal Commision [which is what is called for when something needs – for the Establishment – to be kicked into the v e r y long grass]!
The extracts I’ve read look like politics – politics after the fashion of Piltdown.
J. Peden (11:02:37) :
Phil Clarke (10:13:07)
So whatever conclusions are drawn, are drawn from the subset of the mail that the thief wants you to see, not ‘the whole truth’. That’s a REAL ‘manufactured bias’ for you.
“Release the data and methods, Phil. Problem solved/Scientific Method resumed.”
Phil seems a little more dazed than usual. It provides for an opportunity to observe bias in the wild in real time. Not the whole truth?
Does anyone know how to contact Lord Monckton? I tried finding an email online and could not. I intend to urge him to find a way to file a suit against UAE CRU and those who are apparently involved in various frauds.
If the MSM will not cover this story — and it seems as though they are not — then there have to be other ways to bring these people and the incredibly serious issues these revelation raise (the manipulation of public opinion and the political process in many countries and through the UN) into a forum such that there is a chance to get the public to question and doubt AGW such that the wind comes out of the public policy insanity that is currently being considered.
Personally, I can see of no other way of getting at this issue now besides legal action. Who else should we be contacting to urge legal action?
PLEASE CHECK THIS OUT / MANN AND THE 1940-DECLINE:
In file the hacked folder, “documents/Osborn-tree6/mann/oldprog
there is a file “Calibrate_corectmxd” . It was last changed 13 sep 1999.
I have made enlarged red text. SEE WHAT THE CODE COMMENTS SAYS:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/manndeclinecode.jpg
And see the “DECLINESERIES.PDF” under Osborn3:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/manndecline1.jpg
And a CLOSE LOOK – Bravo Mr Mann, no more decline in the red graphs:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/manndeclineall.jpg
Cheers,
Lansner
Here’s the SF Examiner’s Tom Fuller’s excellent latest article, the 6th in a series (links to which are provided in #6), titled “Global Warming ‘Truths’ Were Based on Political Need.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d22-Global-warming-truths-were-based-on-political-need
Nope, the 2 graphics i showed is already well known! – sorry no news there.
Perhaps the progam code though.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=529
There are times I regret not ‘pressing on’ into being an academic. I had the test scores for it and an offer from a few places (Wharton was one). But I decided to “avoid all the backbiting” and chase money instead. And sometimes I wonder “what if…”
Then things like this come along. The amount of manipulative BS, the attempts to sabotage careers and journals, the cliquish and petty wars against what look like moral people doing a modest bit of questioning… And I’m glad I gave a big “Nah!” to the whole idea of it.
Frankly, if this is what tenured faculty spend their time doing, I’m all for shutting down any and all public funding of universities and research. It’s all just Payton Place, Junkets, and Days Of Our LIves. Let them do it on their own nickel.
Also, given the blatant “Stacking of the Deck”, intimidation, and blackmail, directed at “Peer Reviewed Journals” I’m ever more convinced of the value of “Public Review” over hand picked yes-men. If this is at all “normal” behaviour, then a great deal is explained about the constant din of “Not Peer Reviewed”. It just means “We were not allowed to be the gatekeepers on publishing.”
Folks, I think the future will be dominated by sites like WUWT, CA, and BishopHill. Places where discoveries are “self published” for all to see, with no “Gatekeepers on Publishing”. And with rather stringent “Public Review”.
“Peer Review” is an obsolete concept. Period.
I, for one, will be looking at any “bond issue” for “universities” and asking myself why I ought to let these jokers put that life style on the government credit card.
When it comes to academic truth “Quis custodiet custodiam?” and the answer came back “nobody”…
So my answer is that it’s up to all us “nobodies” to “do the deed”… and sweep this kind of back room manipulation into the dust bin.
Anyone have contemporaneous quotes from Mann contradicting what he wrote in his email re: Where the heck is global warming?
Here’s the Greenfyre blog, another Warmist mouthpiece, plotting strategy. The gist is:
“I suggest that we have change our response to “smoking gun? who cares? show us the “body!” Of course there is no “body”, or even “bullet holes” anywhere … ie no evidence that anything actually happened.”
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/cru-hack-time-to-hit-back-hard/
The medical examiners are still hard at work, but I would expect that we will be wheeling out several stinking corpses in the run up to Copenhagen…
JP Miller
Christopher Monckton [monckton@mail.com]
Seems to me that the Whistle-blower theory makes the most sense. Whoever it was, just decided to refuse the Kool-Aid cup this time around (what is it with guys named Jones, anyhoo?), and timed this release JIT for Copenhagen.
Which, according to my FOAF sources, is fairly much DOA, anyway: watered down and horse-traded away to almost nothing. So causing a mass CYA outbreak amongst those who should have been using their time more gainfully: pushing the AGW line, bullying the bulliable, and keeping the rest of us in the required ‘State of Fear’ (copyright, the much-missed M Crichton).
Interesting times….
Phil Clarke
I’m not so sure.. Certainly, 10 years ago Mann and Jones were at loggerheads with Briffa 10 years ago, that tree rings could be shown as a proxy to demonstrate a cooler MWP – Briffa complains of the pressure he is under to do the same. Looks to me like he finally succumbed.
Its there:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt
at At 04:19 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Keith Briffa
philincalifornia (07:49:08) :
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:
Hmm…. WordPress lets you create a site ‘for free’. (Just visit wordpress.com )
And this seems to be a common theme (no comments allowed)… So… perhaps all it would take is for a few individuals to run a couple of wide open comment sites. Say “notthebbc.wordpress.com” and “openrealclimate.wordpress.com”. As a controversial / interesting article appears on the ‘source’ an article linking to it with an open comments section could be created. It ought to take less than 5 minutes per article to set up the “link to foo” with a matching title / URL (modulo the site name) and some keyword text so that the Google search would find both.
I would bet that in “no time flat” the “open sites” would have far more participation in comments than the closed sites.
Nice little “easy project” for just about anybody with a bit of interest. Would take about the same level of technical skill as posting comments (i.e. understanding of URLs and how to use minor HTML tags).
Phil (11:27:04) :
I work with models for a living. When I find they produce “anomalous” results in any area, then I go hunting for the cause – I *don’t* just replace them with other data I happen to have lying around.
Phil, I have also had a long career as a research scientist. It taught me the importance of careful reading. Tim Osborn did not replace the years 1960- with other data. He declared them, in the 2001 paper, to be affected by an external cause, and did not use them at all.
Maybe that was incorrect. It’s been there in the literature for eight years for people to argue with. AFAIK, no-one has. But what has happened here is that a hacked email turned up in which he said just the same thing. And Bishop Hill misrepresented what he said, and listed it as offence #3.
an MP from UK got the news http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-bbcs-obsession-with-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Guardian story with no comments section.
Phil Clarke (03:47:06) :
“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.”
Nick Stokes (07:17:30) :
“I absolutely agree. The intro says that Hill is a careful and succinct writer, but much of this is just sloppy.”
I think it’s very important that our side avoid overstatement and not make mountains out of molehills. If we do, we’re merely build a strawman for the other side to knock down. In particular, in matters where the other side has wiggle room, such as “contain the MWP,” we should acknowledge up front that it’s only a possibility that the suspicious phrase might have an innocent explanation. (For instance, “trick” has an innocent explanation.) Otherwise we’ll come across as untrustworthy–as an intemperate hanging judge. We should temper our prosecutorial zeal with judiciousness.
I suggest that BH should reword some of his points more cautiously, in light of the criticisms made by the two posters above.
“Remember that a lot of Representatives voted for C&T rather reluctantly and subsequently took a shellacking for it back home . Many in the Senate are aware of this , and would hopefully welcome any excuse to run from climate change legislation .”
This scandal will at least give the closet skeptics a justification for asking for a delay in CC legislation. That’s all we need — after a year or two more of flat-to-cooling temperatures, the cc crusade will lose its head of steam. We need to play for time–and now we have a way of doing so.
Remember, all we need to do to justify a delay is to show that there is doubt about the robustness of the IPCC report, and that its findings need another look. There’s no good counter to that claim. But, if we overplay our hand and claim that CAWG has been debunked, we’re open to rebuttals and to a resumption of the confusing dog-fight that’s been going on for ages. And anyway the majority isn’t willing to make such a drastic shift in its position. They need time to ponder and let the dust settle.
=========
” BR (04:45:13) :
Let’s not call it CRUgate; too obscure. Climategate is better.”
I think we’re stuck with Climategate for general use, because it seems to have caught on out there in the real world (53K google hits so far), but we can refer to the e-mails themselves, at least on this site, as “The CRUtape Letters,” which is still a brilliant suggestion.
============
dearieme (04:10:19) :
““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.”
LOL!
JP Miller (11:53:21) :
Contact the highest ranking GOP representative in the area you live in. The Conservative base of the Republican Party is insulted to no end by AGW/Climate Change and it’s End-Justifying-Means tactics.
The UK has Monckton of Benchley.
While he has done so much for us, we have to find someone in the US to do what he does so well: command attention. Gore and the Dems are terrified of him.
Whom in the US do we have of that reputation and standing?