CEI’s Chris Horner asks WUWT readers for some help in locating “Phil Jones’s Aspirations”
So, I’m leafing through another 1,500 pages of emails dumped on me by NASA in an apparent attempt to forestall litigation we informed them was coming this week after the clock tolls on their requirement to comply with requests under the Freedom of Information Act (it’s complicated, so here’s the gist of what two of the requests were about; the third one is about NASA using taxpayer resources to produce content for and manage the third-party “global warming” activist operation RealClimate, which you will read about soon).
Near the end of the first of three large folders of documents I see a particular email thread between James Hansen and Phil Jones.
In Jones’ final reply at the top of the thread, there is some mildly interesting discussion of e.g., China temperatures, and then, after a little nattering about how those ocean temperature observations seem too cool for their tastes and so clearly the observations are wrong, Jones writes to Hansen, “As I think you might has said earlier, we aren’t doing a great job in measuring surface T[emperatures] in a consistent manner”.
But, before this and in the same email, Jones admits to Hansen, “I hope the Met Office prediction for 2015 in last week’s Science are correct!” [hyperlink to Met Office press release added]
He is referring to the prediction by the Met Office, in Science magazine’s August 10, 2007 issue, of accelerating “global warming” leading to record temperatures, beginning 2009 or so. The article (by Doug Smith et al.) is behind a paywall, but it declared an understanding, courtesy of a new modeling technique, that we will see at least five years claiming “warmest ever” by the year 2015.
It is possible that someone in Jones’ position hopes for record temperatures simply because their enterprise thrives on the global warming panic. But I was reminded of an earlier email of Jones’s, which I thought had made the rounds pre-CRUGate, asserting in response to a challenge that, yes, he does wish/want/need disruptive anthropogenic climate change to be true/real (the precise word choice eludes me), because it will cause society to straighten up and fly right in terms of its policies and lifestyles.
I cannot locate this email, either by web-searching or on the various East Anglia email sites. So, I appeal to readers: who can recall and produce a copy of that earlier Jones email?
I ask because together they do rather support the argument that the global warming alarmists, even if donning the vestments of “science”, remain ideological advocates. They want their Man-as-agent-of-doom theory to be true, they need it to be true. Such evidence would certainly color their claims, and the exposed fudging, lying, withholding and the rest of the nasty little bag of tricks that collectively amount to pushing an agenda. With a line of reasoning that goes do what I want or people die! In the name of “science”.
The irony here is that the same issue of Science published a letter [subscription required] by Robert Gitzen of the University of Missouri, titled “The Dangers of Advocacy in Science”.
Regardless, any help in tracking down this earlier Phil Jones email is appreciated.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m no scientist, but will have a look for it.
Couldn’t he simply have hoped the Met office prediction was correct because he was working at the Met office, and didn’t want to have been at least partially responsible for an error?
…Just saying.
email 1120593115
I think this may be the Phil Jones email you are looking for:
“As you know, I’m not political. 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”
This it?
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
at the end of the e-mail:
This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I’m not political. 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.
1120593115.txt
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.
An interesting tidbit from that same e-mail:
Jones:
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.
I remember one EMail where Jones was hoping for unprecedented warming “to prove the science”
I believe that THAT is a direct quote, or damned close anyway.
Thank you.
and this:
For example, one concern relates to whether IPCC review has been sufficiently
robust and independent. We understand that Dr. Michael 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 prominent use of this work in the IPCC TAR and to understand what this controversy indicates about the data quality of key IPCC studies.
sorry, I didn’t attribute the last quote. The concerns about Mann et al come form Joe Barton, and his committee, not from Jones.
I don’t know if you’ll find the email, but if you are looking to find a conspiracy theory, you came to the right website.
Sorry about the bad paragraph breaks, taking too much time as it is when I ought to be finishing up dinner. Hope it helps.
http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/mail/1120593115.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: John Christy
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
:What will be interesting is to see how IPCC pans out, as we’ve been told we can’t use
any article that hasn’t been submitted by May 31. This date isn’t binding, but
Aug 12 is a little more as this is when we must submit our next draft – the one
everybody will be able to get access to and comment upon. The science isn’t
going to stop from now until AR4 comes out in early 2007, so we are going to
have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide
what is important and new. So, unless you get something to me soon, it won’t
be in this version. It shouldn’t matter though, as it will be ridiculous to keep
later drafts without it. We will be open to criticism though with what we do add
in subsequent drafts. Someone is going to check the final version and the
Aug 12 draft. This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC,
me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you
know, I’m not political. 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.”
You are looking for email 1120593115 Jones to Christy.
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.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Humbug
I never get tired of reading these e-mails:
From a few e-mails down, on July 15, from Tom Wigley:
Correlations with the climate model are not the same — but Briffa is again the clear outlier.
Why?
Tom.
How about This and that – 1120593115.txt from Jones to Christy. Look for the word “selfish”.
Hi Anthony ,
Not the email you are looking for but this one is along similar lines.
Phil Jones writes to Tim Johns, Chris Folland, and Doug Smith, regarding temperature predictions:
January 5, 2009: email 1231190304
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met(eorological) Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like—“half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998”!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying “where’s the warming gone”? I know the warming is on the decades scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Here’s a link to the full e-mail.
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=544&s=tag124
It is email 1120593115.txt
Oddly enough, the eastanglia site truncates this email, and does not contain that text.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt
Boris (17:40:41) :
I go to exxonsecrets for my conspiracy theories, though that’s getting a little stale If you want fresh “oil money” conspiracies, RealClimate is pretty good.
Need help?
I’ll do 10 to 15
With WUWT readership, that’s them all read in short order
DaveE.
Boris: your
I don’t know if you’ll find the email, but if you are looking to find a conspiracy theory, you came to the right website.
I know what you mean. But the paranoia is not from where you are hinting at, is it?
From Mann:
At 16:06 30/09/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
Its part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. its a direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-funded corporate attack campaign.
that is definitely tin-foil hat material, isn’t it?
Don’t worry about that, the sun is going out 🙂
Just saw the SOHO image
Moderator:
This image was supposed to be embedded: http://imgur.com/5PGjL.jpg
Or maybe not; it looks like some sort of SOHO glitch.
The stench reaches all the way down here to the Republic of TX. On a cheerier note, be aware that the Catlin retar… um, I mean idiots, are at it again. Trekking for science… or sumthin’ like that.
This time, I gather, it’s to measure (invent, to be precise) a scare about acidifying of the arctic waters due to the unprecedented IN ALL OF HISTORY warming of the oceans. Drat that expanding ice cover this year….
Unfortunately I haven’t the leisure to poke through these files but I offer a word of advice to the army of Davids who will take this up: Pay attention to email thread fragments included in these. As far as possible keep a record of missing emails. It seems to me that the main reason for the delay to the last possible minute was to thoroughly purge these files of the most “problematic” stuff. There are sure to be some nuggets in the 15,000 pages, but I’ll bet the best is purged. It may even be deleted outright. However, if you folks can pin down a few dozen likely targets by sender or source, date and time, it should be possible to (a) reconstruct a chain of correspondence that is only partly purged; and (b) identify candidate mails for more specific FOIA requests that may be harder to refuse, such as (my fabrication) “Request release of email Jones to Hansen, Cc: Briffa, Schmidt et al, containing phrase ‘more stations to drop’, dated 15/07/06, 17:45:23” Let’s see them try to refuse that.
Oh, and reply to “Boris”, above: Nobody here is interested in making up a conspiracy theory. This business is about building a legal case to force these guys to be transparent about their motives and operations. We’re only interested in facts. If you’re looking for conspiracy theories, ad hominem and conviction by innuendo, look no further than RealClimate.
SUN GOES ON SPRING BREAK
This from Layman’s SunSpot site
‘…………..2010/03/08 10:14 Activity has been extremely weak with not a lot to report, which in itself is of supreme interest. Region 1 has to date only been up to speck level with a current reading over the whole region of 14. We are now into our 5th day of zero sunspots with no regions on the horizon to save us…..we could get a very active region tomorrow but the signs are not promising right now. The adjusted F10.7 flux figures recorded a high of 76.3 and a low of 74.5 for yesterday, we are starting to get close to absolute minimum readings. The solar wind is also at rock bottom again……’
.