Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.
Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the Medeival Warm Period exists.
4101.txt
cc: k.briffa@uea.xx.xx
date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:56:46 -0500
from: “drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu” <drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>
subject: RE: CCDD
to: p.jones@uea.xx.xx
Hi Phil,
Thanks for the added info. If Mike said that my calibration procedure is
“flawed”, I will be extremely pissed off. His grad student just submitted a
paper to The Holocene, with Mike and I as co-authors, that compares my
point-by-point method with his RegEM method (Keith should have received the
paper by now). There are “modest” improvements in some areas using RegEM,
but overall the two methods produce statistically identical results on a
regional basis.
Indeed, it is mentioned in the paper that the P-B-P method
could be improved by adding a dynamic search radius for each grid point,
thus making it even closer to RegEM and maybe even better. Indeed, the
P-B-P method produces classical calibration period information and
estimates that are very useful in understanding the fitted models. In
contrast, RegEM does not produce any such useful information and thus
operates much more as a “black box”.
Re standardization and low-frequency stuff, the vast majority of the
tree-ring chronologies have been standardized to preserve variance at least
up to 100 years (and generally more). I also agree with you that PDSI ought
not to have a great deal of multi-centennial variability because it is
dominated by precipitation, which is dominated by high-frequency, nearly
white, variance. I am surprised that Tom Karl does not seem to understand
that.
In all candor now, I think that Mike is becoming a serious enemy in the way
that he bends the ears of people like Tom with words like “flawed” when
describing my work and probably your and Keith’s as well. This is in part a
vindictive response to the Esper et al. paper. He also went crazy over my
recent NZ paper describing evidence for a MWP there because he sees it as
another attack on him. Maybe I am over-reacting to this, but I don’t think
so.
Cheers,
Ed
Original Message:
—————–
From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.xx.xx
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:17:30 +0000
To: drdendro@ldeo.xx.xx
Subject: RE: CCDD
Ed,
There isn’t that much more I can expand on really. Conversation only
last 5 minutes.
Probably you need to add how standardization done and any impact on
low-freq of you calibration with your AR-1 process (pre-whitening).
Why Tom and others thought there should be a lot of low-freq is odd? I
don’t think there will be much in a PDSI series.
By the way Mark also presented your in progress work with the
enhanced grid and the work NCDC was doing to create the PDSI grid at 2 by 3 for you. May have got the wrong end of what they were doing here, but I got the impression that
Mark at NCDC-West and NCDC itself were helping you through your CCDD project.
The only person worth discussing this with is Mike Mann, who may be
able to expand on what I said. He can at least say why your calibration process is
flawed (in his mind).
I was saying all your trees were very carefully and consistently
standardized and you’d retained as much low-freq as possible. I hope you have ! I could find out from the paper
I presume, but I don’t have the time !
I now clasp my hands and bow in the buddhist way !
Cheers
Phil
At 05:53 07/11/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Phil,
>
>This is probably the first message you have received from Bhutan. I am here
>now with Paul sorting out mainly political issues for doing a lot of
>sampling here next year.
>
>Thanks for the heads-up on the low-frequency stuff. I return home on Nov 11
>and will deal with it as best I can. Any more inside info from you will
>also be appreciated.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed
>
>Original Message:
>—————–
>From: Phil Jones p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:36:51 +0000
>To: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
>Subject: CCDD
>
>
>
> Ed,
> Just got back from the CCDD panel meeting. An issue arose outside the
>main sessions, so
> although important it is only scientific !
> Mark Eakin gave a presentation which showed how they have used your
>PDSI recons to
> show droughts back 500-1000 years for parts of the US. All on a web
site,
>which has come
> about from Mark’s group being part of NCDC.
> All is well but Tom Karl said he was suspicious of the
reconstructions
>as we all know
> trees lose low-frequency. I was trying to defend you but them Mike Mann
>said your
> pre-whitening recon method won’t get low freq. My view is that you
>probably need some
> text up on the site to say what the truth is. It may be there, but it
>needs to be more
> prominent. All Mark said was that they carefully scaled your recons with
>the instrumental
> PDSI. Mark certainly needs to note when presenting something.
> My other view is that PDSI may not have much low freq and it is also
>one sided – trees
> don’t respond to heavy precip, beyond a certain limit.
>
> I can expand more if you want, but I have a mountain of email to go
>through from being
> away, but I’m sure you get the points.
>
> To some extent Keith, you and me have all oversold the tree/low-freq
>thing and now
> everyone believes it but don’t appreciate it applies to all other
>high-freq proxies to a
> similar extent, but in different guises.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>—————————————————————————
–
>
>
>——————————————————————–
>mail2web – Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.xx.xx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
——————————————————————–
mail2web – Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
========================================================
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sounds like Climate Science is only looking for an excuse to ditch Mann. Go on!
Unfortunately, this will probably be spun as “this is how science works” and that people with obvious personal clashes can work together for the benefit of all. Its all good, doncha know?
Read my bit over at CA about how Mann disinvited himself from a meeting because someone he didn’t like was going to be there. I try to follow Steve’s instruction not to editorialize, but damn, it was hard not to point out that this sounded like an 8 year old having a fit over a birthday party invitation…
Mikey’s been a loose cannon for awhile.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=724
Mann is man in action
from: Michael Mann
subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
to: Kevin Trenberth
Michael Mann wrote:
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).
From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?
Holy Consensus where are you now?
I thought that 99.99% percent of world’s noble scientist agreed with each other about the current knowledge of climate science. The most common counter argument presented when debating with the alarmist gang.
Crazy? Serious enemy? Vindictive??
Begs the question…if your science is robust, you can still be crazy, vindictive, and even a serious enemy…but why would you need to be? Unless of course you’re desperately defending work you know to be flawed.
Crazy Mike?
What on earth is a “Standard[ized] Tree”? That reeks. “a proxy, a proxy not…….” Really, I think Mann was thrust into the spotlight with his Hockey Stick, and elevated to rock-star status by a system loaded with sycophancy, while knowing, perhaps full well, that scrutiny was HIS worst enemy. Well, guess what? The microscope has been fired up. And he only has AdHom left in his tool kit.
Keep in mind these emails are 9 years old. Mann might be all of those things, but this dispute could have been settled amicably long ago.
ScientistForTruth put this email in comments over at Bishop Hill but it seems relevant here.
If you displease Mann he gives you a humiliating dressing down in front of senior members of the Team:
date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Ben Santer , “Raymond S. Bradley” , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , James Hansen
Curt, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What ib earth are you thinking? …I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this…and you must further know how your statements are going to be used…simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann
—
Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
Phone:REDACTED075 503
Walker Building
FAX:REDACTED663
The Pennsylvania State University
email:REDACTED University Park, PAREDACTED
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
One of the UK MSM are beginning to wake up. Only in their online version so far
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html#ixzz1ejs4oeSp
(large circulation, middle-brow)
Revealed: How Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn’t fit their apocalyptic global warming claims
By Rob Waugh
Last updated at 6:11 PM on 25th November 2011
5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man made
Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a ‘strong message’
Critics claim: ‘The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering’
Scientist asks, ‘What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us all’
Mike “Honey Badger” Mann.
After reading the main thread, and the follow up by artwest @10.21, it is no wonder that Mann and his University are doing everything they can to stop the release of his e-mails.
I understand that some will say that his personal e-mails have nothing to do with me (and they are correct), but his work/research e-mails have everything to do with me and many others.
To quote foai2011 Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
Notice also the undertone of worry about ‘low freq’ treemometer response. This is basically the issue that trees seem to adapt over decades to climate fluctuations, so the longer term (centennial signals) is lost in short term noise.
This is why the hockey shaft is pretty flat throughout the MWP and LIA. Well, that and Mann’s shonky stats methods.
I made this comment the other day at CA:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/23/private-expressions-of-uncertainty/#comment-311829
YEP !!!
Talking of being vindictive: Anthony, I am sure you know by now that this guy is not your biggest fan – but this is quite a rant from RC:
“Fake skeptics like Anthony Watts try to blame global warming on bad station siting. Turns out he was wrong.
Then they try to blame it on dropout of reporting stations. Turns out that was wrong.
The fake skeptics can hardly contain their worship for a new team to estimate temperature (the Berkeley team) which is started by a skeptic. They’re sure the new estimate will prove that the other estimates are fraudulent. Anthony Watts proclaims that he’ll accept whatever their results are, even if it contradicts him. It contradicts him. He refuses to accept their results. He launches into multiple tirades to discredit the new effort.
Fake skeptics try to blame global warming on UHI. Turns out they were wrong.
Fake skeptics try to claim global warming has “paused” or “slowed down” or isn’t even happening. Turns out they were wrong.
Scoundrels resort to stealing a bunch of private emails and take them out of context so they can launch a campaign of character assassination. Multiple investigations follow, the science of global warming is vindicated. Again.
The fake skeptics have got nothing. Zero. Zip. Squat. With all the real science against them, apparently their only recourse is to look for “sloppy seconds” in the stolen emails in a lame attempt to revive their smear campaign. It tells us all we need to know about the so-called “skeptics.” They are pathetic.
I’m tempted to laugh — but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate.
Comment by tamino — 22 Nov 2011 @ur momisugly 7:03 PM
REPLY: Well, I plan to make Tamino eat those words in the first line. And he’ll have trouble doing it, but he’ll have to. I have data on my side, he has snark. – Anthony
Whilst there appear to be quite a few deluded fools ready to defend the team, despite these e-mails, the crooks themselves don’t appear to be making too many public appearances right now. Can’t think why they haven’t, very publicly, sprung to the defence of their robust science.
We live in wonderful times.
Put Mike Mann in the STATE PEN.
So Mann and these others are soothsaying temperatures from tree rings and we’re expected to take this as serious science? Really?
John L. Daly said it perfectly, to paraphrase, essentially using tree rings as a temperature proxy is pseudo-science, or more paraphrasing eloquently soothsaying temperature from tree rings is no different than soothsaying the future from entrails.
The actual quote:
artwest says:
November 25, 2011 at 10:22 am
date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Ben Santer , “Raymond S. Bradley” , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , James Hansen
“…I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this…and you must further know how your statements are going to be used…simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann”
This is not science. This is not academia. This is demonstrative control of a group and a group message. Unless these people pushed backed against Mikey and did so effectively, this is conspiracy. Regardless of what the addressees did, Mikey takes for granted a conspiratorial organization.
I wouldn’t be too smug Anthony and others. After all these guys are doing real research and are merely discussing the details of their work.
A little O/T, but I am struck by this particular email:
I believe that this demonstrates just how far IPCC and MSM are willing to go to perpetuate the AGW hoax. Amazing to me …
(bolding mine)
Hugh,
I think the word you are looking for is vindicated, not smug. Unless, of course, you were joking.
“hugh pepper said
don’t be too smug these guys are doing real research”.
Wouldn’t class using models over real time observations as real research..have you read any of these new emails??
Anthony, if I may be so bold, I nominate this comment for the “Friday Funny”:
Good news, I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that. Bad news, I was eating a dry crumbly cookie. How do I get out the cookie crumbs I just reverse-snorted into my sinuses?
That comment is hilarious!