ATI Statement on Results from Today’s Hearing in Freedom of Information Act Case Against U. of Virginia
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, September 16, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
Today in Prince William County court Judge Gaylord Finch delayed arguments and the scheduled production of documents in American Tradition Institute’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the University of Virginia. A brief hearing was held to discuss a Motion to Intervene in the case by lawyers for former UVA professor Michael Mann, whose records that were created while employed there are what ATI seeks. Judge Finch, recognizing the important precedent-setting potential of the case, said he wanted to schedule a longer hearing — two hours — to hear arguments about whether to allow Dr. Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, to enter the case.
Judge Finch granted ATI a sur reply in the case, which allows ATI Environmental Law Center director David Schnare to place additional materials before the court as Judge Finch considers whether to allow Dr. Mann to intervene. The two-hour hearing is scheduled for Nov. 1.
Statement by ATI Environmental Law Center director Dr. David Schnare about today’s developments:
“If it wasn’t clear before, it should now be clear to everybody. This is an extremely important case, and we appreciate Judge Finch’s careful attention to detail as we proceed.”
See case documents, press releases, media coverage, commentary, broadcast interviews, etc. pertaining to ATI v. University of Virginia by clicking here: http://bit.ly/mLZLXC
h/t to Bob Ferguson
Andrew Russell,
The temperatures that can be inferred from tree ring data almost always agree fairly closely with temperatures from direct instrumental measurement. So, when a set of tree ring data yields a set of temperatures that diverge widely from instrumental data — especially instrumental data whose accuracy one has no reason to question — it is reasonable to assume that some unknown factor has produced the anomaly. It is also reasonable to set the tree ring data aside until this factor can be identified; otherwise, you risk inferring a decline in temperatures when the correct inference would be, for example, a drought, an infestation of pests, or something of the like.
Evaluating the soundness of data is a basic part of scientific analysis; to accept all data without evaluation or validation would be to entrust one’s research to the hands of chance. I don’t think that careful scientists are that trusting.
Jesse Fell
‘Evaluating the soundness of data is a basic part of scientific analysis;’
It is and magic trees would fail such an analysis .
I suggest you do some reading other than Real Climate about what the hide the decline was about . The idea that tree rings can proved valued temperature data is highly questionable , indeed the very divergence that the Team made ‘go-way’ suggest there not for they have no real idea why this has been seen in the first place . And unless your of a religions mind, blind and unquestioning faith is rarely good for you in the long term.
Jesse Fell;
My understanding of “hide the decline” is that for the period after 1960, the temperatures that could be inferred from a certain set of tree ring diverged sharply from temperatures obtained by direct instrumental measurement for the same period. Ordinarily,the temperatures that can be inferred from proxy data are fairly close to instrumental data;>>>>
My my my, how selective of the actual story facts can you get? Let’s see, the instrumental data goes back to what….1880 for NASA/GISS? 1850 for HadCrut? Let’s use HadCrut. 1850 to 2000 is 150 years. According to PHIL JONES and MICHAEL MANN, the data from the tree rings DOES NOT MATCH THE INSTRUMENTAL RECORD FOR 40 YEARS OF THAT TIME PERIOD.
1. That’s over 25% of the timeline. Since we know for a fact, accroding to the experts themselves, Jones and Mann, that the tree rings don’t even come close to representing the actual temperature record AT LEAST 25% OF THEM TIME, could you please explain why the previous thousand years of data SHOULD BE?
2. If the decline in the tree ring data was obviously “scientific” to dispose of, why did they have to “hide” it via “Mike’s Nature Trick” which was to truncate the data exactly where several lines cross, making them look like spaghetti, and the fact that a couple of them just disappear at the point?
3. After being caught out hiding contrary data and replacing it with supporting data, they came up with the very excuses that you quote. They never mentioned that they did the same thing with another few decades of data in the MIDDLE of the graph. Until they got caught at that too.
Sorry Jesse, but for anyone who bothered to go through the emails in context, and follow the story from beginning to end, your excuses are preposterous and blatantly repititious. You’ve added nothing to the debate except to repeat things that are so obviously not true that you are either (contrary to your claims) unfamiliar with the whole story, or wilfully… let’s go with blind. I had another word in mind but I’m certain it would get snipped.
Jesse Fell;
So, when a set of tree ring data yields a set of temperatures that diverge widely from instrumental data — especially instrumental data whose accuracy one has no reason to question — it is reasonable to assume that some unknown factor has produced the anomaly. It is also reasonable to set the tree ring data aside until this factor can be identified; otherwise, you risk inferring a decline in temperatures when the correct inference would be, for example, a drought, an infestation of pests, or something of the like.>>>>
Exactly! Despite all of our instrumental data we have no clue, to this day, as to why the tree ring data diverged from the instrumental record. For 40 years. So HOW can you POSSIBLE suggest that the previous 850 years of data from tree rings simply be accepted at face value when we have NO POSSIBLE WAY OF VERIFYING IT?
Are you competing with R Gates for the Troll of the Month Award?
Jesse Fell;
to accept all data without evaluation or validation would be to entrust one’s research to the hands of chance. I don’t think that careful scientists are that trusting.>>>
See my previous comment. Duh.
Jesse Fell;
However, next quote in the list you sent me to shows that CRU people were determined to keep a certain paper from being cited in the IPCC report. That, in itself, is not damning; in fact, the IPCC needed to be selective about what papers to cite — papers are not all of equal quality. And the quotation does not indicate that they were opposing the citation of a particular paper for any other than scientific reasons.>>>
Yes, so important was it to keep that paper out that Phil Jones said that he and Kevin (Trenberth) would keep it out even if it meant having to re-define the scientific process. Tell me Jesse, was the scientific process so flawed that it needed to be re-defined prior to contrary papers being published? Or after? Was the scientific process used by ALL OTHER SCIENCES not used in the first place? Or was it only in need of re-definition when contrary papers started to appear?
Pick your poison sir. If the climate science didn’t meet the requisite standards in the first place, THEN ALL THE CLIMATE SCIENCE UP TO THAT POINT IS SUSPECT AND SHOULD BE THROWN OUT. If the original science processes were fine, THEN THE ONLY REASON TO RE-DEFINE THEM WOULD BE TO BLOCK CONTRARY PAPERS FROM BEING PUBLISHED DESPITE THEM BEING SCIENTIFICALY SOUND. For example, Wolfgang Wagner resigning in protest over the publication of a paper that he himself says was properly peer reviewed and scientificaly sound for the one and only reason that it was contrary to the work of Kevin Trenberth.
Despite your protestations to the contrary sir, you are a troll. I’m the Billy Goat Gruff, and frankly, you look damn silly sitting on your butt in the middle of the stream. Wanna climb back up on the bridge and have another go?
davidmhoffer,
So you concede, then, that Phil Jones was right to set aside the anomalous tree ring data.
As for the use of proxy data generally, scientists always use as many different forms of proxy data as they can find. Usually, they can find more than one. For example, the growth of algae is sensitive to temperature to a known degree, so when roughly the same temperatures can be inferred from algae and from tree rings, scientists feel greater confidence in the inferred temperatures than they would if they had only one source from which to infer temperatures. Scientists gather proxy data from recent times to test it against readings from instruments, to get an idea of the margin of error in the proxy data. The hockey sticks that I have seen show this margin of error as a shaded area above and below the main line.
No scientist to my knowledge has ever said that proxy data is as reliable as instrumental data, or denied that the farther back in time we go, the greater the margin of error in our estimates of average global surface temperatures. But scientists continue to gather new forms of data, and they continue to improve their techniques for evaluating the data — and the result of these improvements continually confirms our belief that over the past 1,000 years or so, the temperature of the Earth has been largely constant, and that the spike in the Earth’s temperature that began roughly 40 years ago is truly anomalous.
Jesse Fell says:
September 17, 2011 at 2:58 pm
davidmhoffer,
So you concede, then, that Phil Jones was right to set aside the anomalous tree ring data.>>>
Oh.
My.
Gosh.
How deluded are you?
Do you really think that ANYONE with enough intelligence to learn to read could interpret what I said as conceding anything of the sort? Are you declaring our own stupidity? Or playing to an audience that you believe is stupid enough for your comment to make sense?
I think you’ve just displaced ******** as the most outrageously rediculous troll at WUWT.
At least I have to work a bit sometimes to butt ******** off the bridge. You on the other hand…look damn silly sitting once again in the midst of the stream.
[NOTE: David, ******** was not part of this discussion and dragging him into it in this fashion might be considered a bit ill spirited. There ARE worse trolls. -REP. mod]
Jesse Fell;
and the result of these improvements continually confirms our belief that over the past 1,000 years or so, the temperature of the Earth has been largely constant, and that the spike in the Earth’s temperature that began roughly 40 years ago is truly anomalous.>>>
Would that include the last 15 years during which there has been ZERO warming? The last 40% of the record that you claim shows anomlous warming? 40% of it is zero. Zero. ZERO! Is there a part of ZERO you do not get? Not to mention, since by your own assertion the instrumental record and the proxy data are both INCREASINGLY INNACURATE THE FURTHER BACK IN TIME WE GO, could I ask…
Anomolous compared to WHAT?
You must really like sitting on your duff in the middle of that stream…
davidmhoffer,
I’m just trying to understand your position. You maintain that proxy data is pretty much worthless, but you still maintain that Phil Jones was wrong not to use an especially problematic set of proxy data in constructing his graft.
Your assertion that there has been no warming in the past 15 years is contradicted by the instrumental record. In fact, something like eight of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. This has been confirmed by many independent lines of data.
As for this troll business — what is a “troll” (in blogspeak; I’m understand its usage in the Brothers Grimm.)
davidmhoffer,
And, please note the correct spelling: anomalous.
[NOTE: It is good that your spelling, unlike most of the rest of us, is perfect, but it is not a response to an argument and in some circles is considered ill-mannered and trollish behavior. -REP, mod]
Jesse Fell: So you concede, then, that Phil Jones was right to set aside the anomalous tree ring data.
No problem, Jesse, I’ll stipulate that. The problem is that he didn’t also set aside the other 800+ years. Read again:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
temp,
No, you are referring to exempted material, which ATI may view, but may not release without approval.
The 3800 pages that ATI have in their possession are already cleared. ATI may post them publicly if they wish. This quote from Paul Chesser is from three weeks ago.
I have written to Chesser and ATI demanding that they post all the non-exempted material they currently have – 3827 pages – on the ATI website immediately. Am I the only person here to have done so? And if so, does that not strongly suggest that the actual contents of the emails are of little interest to people here?
To do the job properly, you need to review ALL the material. not just fragments. Context is everything. We should be satisfied with nothing less than immediate and full access to the cleared material in ATI’s possession. Is there any ‘logic’ in an alternative position?
juanslayton,
Thanks for the link — I’ll read it tomorrow.
But for now, I’ll just repeat that every scientist I’ve read agrees that proxy data is not as reliable as instrumental data. Unfortunately, we have good instrumental readings going back only a hundred years and a few more. Dante was preoccupied with Beatrice, not with the daily temperatures in Florence. So, to discard 800+ years of proxy data would be to discard all but a stub just above the blade. Still, we have a clearly distinguished stub and blade.
I would also note that if we have to discard all of the hockey stick except that which can be based on instrumental data, we also have to discard any idea of a medieval warming period, for the evidence for such a period is based on the same sort of proxy data as the long handle of the hockey stick.
But let me ask Bobby Orr what he thinks about all this.
Jesse Fell;
I’m just trying to understand your position. >>>
Reply: Really? You’ve made several assertions that are without merit, made analogies that that are meaningless, and repeated much hyped (but completely discredited) dogma as if it was fact…but you maintain that you’re just trying to understand my position? I haven’t stated my position. I’ve pointed out that the positions that you’ve taken are based on a house of cards.
Jesse Fell;
You maintain that proxy data is pretty much worthless, but you still maintain that Phil Jones was wrong not to use an especially problematic set of proxy data in constructing his graft.>>>
Reply: No. What I said was that if the tree ring data cannot be substantiated for the last 40 to 50 years, then the same logic cannot substantiate it for the previous 950 years. I neither agreed with nor disagreed with its accuracy or value. I pointed out that Jones is choosing that data which agrees with him, and discarding that which does not. That is not science.
Jesse Fell;
Your assertion that there has been no warming in the past 15 years is contradicted by the instrumental record. In fact, something like eight of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. This has been confirmed by many independent lines of data.>>>
Reply: For starters, Jones himself testified that the warming of the last 15 years is statistically insignificant. Being warmer than the year before by less than 1/100th of a degree is meaningless when the instrumentation being used can’t even MEAUSURE 1/100th of a degree. Further, the warming of the last 90 years is about the same as the previous 90 years… according to the instrumental record. Since CO2 began rising significantly in 1920, why are the before and after increases about the same? FURTHERMORE, the various records pretty much show that the earth has been warming for the last few hundred years. So…this century SHOULD be the warmest of the last few centuries, and the last few decades SHOULD be the warmest etc…that’s the result of a general wasrming trend, isn’t it? Warmer now than before? It has been warming for centuries, and it started CENTURIES before CO2 emissions became significant.
Again, back to your anomolous quote (correct my spelling all you want, it won’t help my spelling and it won’t change the facts BTW), anomylus cumpaird to wat? The last ice age? Or when grapes were a major crop in Britain because it was warm enough to grow them? Or when the Vikings had thriving colonies in Greenland? Or when the dinosaurs roamed the jungles of northern Canada? Which are these “unprecedented” temperatures to be compared to? and how many of them were due to CO2 levels above what we have now?
Zero. Oops. Forgot. You don’t know what zero is.
Jesse Fell;
I would also note that if we have to discard all of the hockey stick except that which can be based on instrumental data, we also have to discard any idea of a medieval warming period, for the evidence for such a period is based on the same sort of proxy data as the long handle of the hockey stick.>>>
Bull. We have ALL SORTS of proxy data to substantitate the medieval warming period. Here’s a few…ok, more than a few…
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
“Jesse Fell says:
September 17, 2011 at 11:29 am
Questions for you, Werner: Aren’t there other hockey stick models? What do they show? If they show roughly the same thing, do we have reason to believe that they are based on fudged data?”
Yes there are other hockey stick models and they all show the same thing. But with all the evidence that “davidmhoffer says: September 17, 2011 at 5:13 pm” exactly what is happening here? Either the IPCC crew knows something all other scientists do not know about the MWP or something is wrong with the computer code. That is why we want Mann’s files! We want to know what is really happening. Perhaps Mann is correct after all, but we want to be sure before spending trillions for a problem that may or may not exist. Is that too much to ask considering the potential costs involved?
barry says:
September 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm
temp,
Yes ATI has gotten a huge amount of the data to review… However THEY AREN’T ALLOWED TO RELEASE IT UNTIL THE COURT APPROVES
No, you are referring to exempted material, which ATI may view, but may not release without approval.
The 3800 pages that ATI have in their possession are already cleared. ATI may post them publicly if they wish. This quote from Paul Chesser is from three weeks ago.”
I agree they should be posted right away but I question this quote. The last time I read they got this info is to review it to be released as part of the lawsuit not that it could be released only that it could be reviewed… as this is a secondary source and the quote easily meaning what I read earlier I still hold that all files are currently under a gag order.
Just because the info has been turned over for review doesn’t mean that it can be released to the public just means that UVA released it to ATI as part of the lawsuit so they can argue over what can be released. Unless you got an ATI headline saying that UVA has released the info no strings or that UVA posted it for everyone to have… I’m still going to sit in the “they’re still playing with the court thus the legal ability to release is hampered”.
Once again no mistake if they can post it on the internet at this moment they should… much like climategate the internet can sort through it 1,000x faster then they’re small group.
To
barry says:
September 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I just ran through ATIs site on this issue(should have done it before first post)
http://www.atinstitute.org/michael-mann-supporters-make-case-for-release-of-emails/
“Finally, Dr. Mann’s own letter to UVA shows why his work and correspondence while employed there are of national public interest, writing, ”Allowing the indiscriminate release of these materials will cause damage to reputations and harm principles of academic freedom.” But Dr. Mann is not challenging “indiscriminate release” of the records, but release under seal of a Protective Order (link to order http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ATI-v-UVA-5-24-Protective-Order.pdf)— one agreed to by University of Virginia more than three months ago, to no legal response by Mann until the records were due for production.”
It clearly states all releases currently are under a protective order(ie gag order) so as of this point they can’t release any of the info to the public.
Werner, david’s ‘evidence’ amounts to a link to a heavily agendaed website (it uses words like ‘alarmist’ and ‘hoax’). I checked some of the references and they don’t stack up. There is one multiproxy study there that is interesting (and recent), but it is inconclusive, and mainly compares early to mid-holocene temps with pre-industrial (~1750). Basically, they’re saying that it was warmer during the early to mid holocene than it was during the LIA. They make even more tentative conclusions abut the MWP, which is briefly mentioned in the paper, saying that it may have been over 1C warmer than ~1750 – but they qualify that there is too little SH data to make a confident global determination. The same author (Ljungkvist) last year delivered a paper on MWP specifically that generally was in agreement with Mann and others. IOW, david’s source is poor.
It takes time and effort to get stuff like this straight, and no time at all to create confusion and doubt. There are many multiproxy studies roughly confirming Mann (and others) basic thesis – that the rate of current warming exceeds any other that can be detected using proxy records, and that the last few decades are likely (not absolutely) warmer than the putative MWP. Of course, there are a few other studies that come to different conclusions.
It’s highly doubtful that UVA emails are going to unsettle a body of work that goes well beyond Mann and co. This extraordinary focus on 12 year-old papers is political, not scientific in nature – and that’s why no one here is interested in demanding the release of 3800 pages of emails that ATI currently hold and are at liberty to disseminate.
Sorry mods hehe hopefully this will be the last one.
This clearly states without any doubt the records were given to ATI under court order
“UVa’s August 23 release under court order of 3,800 pages of emails – records that UVa previously denied existed – was its second since the American Tradition Institute (ATI) sought judicial assistance in bringing the school into compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA).
The school has spent approximately $500,000 to date keeping these records from the taxpayer, who paid for their production to begin with.”
http://www.atinstitute.org/atis-horner-uva-goes-all-in-on-climategate-foia-cover-up/
Which means they are subject to court order IE the gag order. These files release under the current court order are the files that UVA refused to release to the DA when the VA DA sued them over it. So I think at this point its clear cut that they can’t release anything until the court approves it which will be a long long time.
“Jesse Fell says:
September 17, 2011 at 4:05 pm
davidmhoffer,
Your assertion that there has been no warming in the past 15 years is contradicted by the instrumental record. In fact, something like eight of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years.”
As a retired physics teacher, let me try to explain it in a different way to what davidmhoffer already did. I will define displacement and velocity in the process. Displacement is the change in position. So if you started at sea level and climbed to the top of Mount Everest, your displacement would be 29,029 feet up. Now suppose you rapidly reached the top in 1998 and then started to slowly walk down at the rate of 10 feet per year. Velocity is the rate of change of position. So in this example, the velocity is 10 feet per year down. Now if you walked down for 12 years, your velocity would be down, even though you would still be very high up during those 12 years.
So there is no contradiction as you claim. It is perfectly possible to be high up (eight of the hottest years), and at the same time be going down (or possibly cooling in our analogy).
By the way, according to the HADCRUT3 record, 1998 was the warmest year and 2011 so far, to the end of July, it is the 12th warmest. See: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Since it does not look good to have 15 years of cooling for certain people, the suggestion is made that 15 years is no longer a good yardstick and 17 years is needed. And Trenberth talks of “20 years or longer” for some other purpose. I think I know why.
temp,
again, you are referring to the exempted material – the Protective Order is specifically targeted at those emails and other material UVA thinks are exempted. It does not cover the 3800 pages of released material from August, which UVA does NOT consider exempted. ATI explicitly say so.
http://www.atinstitute.org/court-orders-university-of-virginia-to/
Those documents were released under this order by the due date (Aug 24) in electronic form, as noted at ATI and here at WUWT at the time. These are the materials that UVA believe are “not protected from disclosure”.
Which is why Chesser said three weeks ago that ATI (not the court) would determine whether or not they would post them on their website.
The other ~5000 pages of material is under the Protective Order. That is what you are referring to. I am referring to the unprotected material no one seems to be interested in demanding from ATI.
barry says:
September 17, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Werner, david’s ‘evidence’ amounts to a link to a heavily agendaed website (it uses words like ‘alarmist’ and ‘hoax’). I checked some of the references and they don’t stack up>>>
Yes…if a web site uses words like “alarmist” and “hoax” that must discredit it, right? Unless of course the evidence being presented by the CAGW cheer leaders is actually a hoax and designed to cause alarm where there isn’t any…. wait…. that’s pretty much on the mark…
You can “check some of the references” and claim they don’t stack up, but then you try and discredit one (just one) without saying WHICH one, and without going into any critique of the science…just some vague comments about what YOU say the paper says…hard to dispute your conclusions when you don’t even say which paper your are referring to. Wait. Are you a climate scientist? Sure sounds like it….
I linked to that web site because it has a long list of ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED PAPERS from all over the world, using a wide variety of proxies, that ALL show that the MWP existed and that it had been warmer before, well in advance of any rise in CO2. Jesse’s claim that if one throws out Jones and Mann’s proxies that show the hockey stick warming one must also throw out the MWP is patently false. If you throw out the tree data that Jones and Mann used, and that was the only data there was, then his claim would be correct. That site has a whole lot of graphs from a whole lot of papers from a whole lot of proxies from a whole lot of places on earth…that all discredit the notion that there was no MWP or (the even more hilarious claim) that it was confined to Europe.
One need not turn to studies however, one can simply refer to historical records. Vikings had thriving colonies in Greenland that are now covered in ice. Receding glaciers in Canada have revealed ancient hunting sites complete with weapons, fire pits and so on that clearly show these were regularly used because the glacier was no where nearby at the time. There were hundreds of vineyards in Britain hundreds of years ago (tax records, or were those faked too?). They dwindled to almost zero…and then started to increase in number again. Not nearly as productive as they were in the MWP…because it isn’t…uhm… warm enough? The Nile froze over around…I forget…about 1000 AD? The same year in Japan the cherry blossoms were very very late. They’ve been getting earlier ever since…earlier springs due to… warming… that started BEFORE CO2 levels started rising? Crack a history book or two, pay attention, and you’ll find all the evidence you need of the existance of the MWP without looking at a single science study.
Or are you going to rewrite history too now….?
david,
“ALL”? Not true, the study I spoke of didn’t do an in-depth analysis of MWP compared to present times. It was mainly concerned with temps from 5 – 10 k/yrs BP, the early to mid-Holocene – and it compared those temps with global temps centred on ~1750, in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It does not in any way say anything, either absolute or tentative, about MWP temps compared to the last few decades – which is the periods of interest WRT Mann’s papers.
Furthermore, other of the references cited on that website are to do with data derived from ice cores that are attempting to track global temps from tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago, and few say much about how these compare with the temps of the last few decades. The author of the blogsite you linked, however, makes plenty of their own interpretations on this, but that blog-effort cannot possibly be mistaken for work that has been “PEER REVIEWED”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the MWP existed.” No one disputes – not even Mann – that there was a warm period, possibly more spatially coherent in the NH than in the SH, in medieval times. But I am very sure that you are far more interested in insulting people who disagree with you than coolly assessing the scientific literature, and that further discussion with you is pointless.