Climategate 2.0 email – Mike Mann characterized as "crazy" over MWP and "serious enemy"

Really now, between Mann and Schmidt I don’t know who’s got the more smarmy grin between the two but I know one thing, it’s infuriating each time I see their mugs.

I was scanning the emails, and found a few tidbits for you, but they got lost on an old thread. The wiggly brackets are my comments. {{ }}
.
{email – 1635}
date: Tue Dec 7 16:23:04 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: FYI
to: Kevin
Kevin,
Wasn’t rung about this one !
What an utter load of rubbish. He should go back to the oil company who pays his salary. He should take the logic course he says we should go on. Claims climate can’t be predicted (as the weather can’t) and we can’t modify the climate anyway.
He should be working for the Bush govt, with this sort of logic !
Phil
{{ Not sure who this email is about – but he is a skeptic, and must be working for the oil companies ….. you know it makes sense. }}
.
{email – 4184}
date: Wed Feb 13 09:17:10 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Feb 7-8
to: “James Hansen”
Jim,
Even though it’s been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
Cheers
Phil
{{ Ah, I see. Not waiting for AGW to ride to the rescue, but waiting for El Nino. Shame we got a big La Nina instead… 😉 }}
a French scientist called Vincent Courtillot. He is making Edouard Bard’s life awful in French. If you’re there on the Friday when Vincent is talking then tell him he’s just completely wrong. He will likely say the climate isn’t warming and even if it was it has little to do with greenhouse gases. So shouldn’t be difficult!! If you’re not there on the Friday, just make sure one or two reasonable scientists are aware that they have invited a bit of rogue!
Cheers
Phil
{{ If you are not a ‘believer’, then you are wrong and a ‘bit of a rogue’, and in need of dusting up a bit. Just threaten his grant supply, that will do it. }}
.
{email – 4195}
From Phil Jones
To Prof. Chris Folland
Research Fellow, Seasonal to Decadal Forecasting
Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Rd, Exeter,
Chris – I presume the Met Office continually monitor the weather forecasts. Maybe because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the forecasts seems a bit over the top re the cold. Where I’ve been for the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the forecasts.
{{ How dare you say the weather is ‘freezing’. Stay on message, the weather is simply ‘not as hot as during the summer’ }}
Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met 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! I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
{{ Stay on message, Chris. I told you before, a lack of warming is ‘not warming quite as much as before’. }}
.
{email – 4370}
date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:39:06 -0000
from: “Robert Matthews” BBC Focus Magazine
subject: Re: BBC Focus magazine
to: “Phil Jones”
Great – thanks ! I see the (skeptic) story has been picked up on CC-NET; perhaps you should post this really handy rebuttal on there, before this story “gets legs” and is picked up by all the usual suspects. It’s the Christmas silly season, and the papers are desperate for stories……
Robert
{{ This is the BBC urging Phil Jones to stop a ‘cooling’ story on the net. They don’t call them the Biased Broadcasting Corporation for nothing. }}
.
{email – 4663}
date: Thu Nov 13 16:19:22 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: [Env.faculty] Global Environmental Change Projects
to: Claire Reeves
To almost all in-government circles (including the US from) the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however, still a vociferous and small majority of climate change skeptics (also called deniers, but these almost entirely exclude any climate-trained climate scientists) who engage the public/govt/media through web sites.
{{ The good old Biased broadcasting Corporation can always be relied upon to be, well, biased. }}
.
{email – 2317}
date: Thu Jul 15 16:25:46 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Paleo data
to: Gabi
Dear All, Gabi,
I was answering one of the skeptics yesterday. The answer is below.
Susan Solomon was here on Tuesday getting an honorary degree. She says we will
have to deal with all these crackpots in the IPCC !
As for your email, there was some press activity related to this skeptic below {{McIntyre}}, but
managed to talk the BBC out of doing anything.
{{ The BBC were about to tell the truth, for once, but managed to talk them out of any such heresy. Pheww!! Can’t have the ‘great unwashed’, knowing the truth. }}
.
{email – 2509}
date: 14 Oct 2009 18:21:07 -0400
from: Gavin Schmidt
subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
to: Michael Mann
cc: Tom Wigley , Kevin Trenberth , “Philip D. Jones”, Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on ‘where the heck is global warming’? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
Kevin
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?
{{ Extremely disappointing to see the BBC telling the truth. Where was our pet rodent (Black), while all this was going on? – I’ll have words with him. No more freebee trips to exotic locations for at least two months….. }}
.
{email – 2496}
date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:48:13 -0000
from: “Gillian Watson”
subject: RE: sceptics
to: “Mike Hulme”
Mike,
I heard the Stott vs. Houghton item on the BBC Today programme this morning… There are a series of links to related web pages at the BBC online article today on “Sceptics denounce climate science ‘lie’ “ at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1833000/1833902.stm.
Links are included to the ESEF web site (http://www.scienceforum.net/) and the sites for George C Marshall Institute (http://www.marshall.org/) and Philip Stott (http://www.ecotrop.org/). Note also that the Tyndall web site is listed 3rd on the internet links section…
Gillie
{{ Oo-err, the BBC has twigged the truth. All hands on deck…. }}
From: Mike Hulme
Sent: 25 February 2002 12:35
To:
Subject: sceptics
Did anyone hear Stott vs. Houghton on Today {{BBC}} radio 4 this morning? Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media/Environment Programme to starve this type of {{BBC}} reporting at source.
{{ In other words, if the media tells the truth (even the BBC, for once), you slap them down via as many political friends as possible. }}
In the meantime the Carbon Trust were very annoyed by the piece (also an article in The Daily Mail – surprise, surprise) and have talked to me about their best line of action. I have pursuaded them that a knee-jerk reaction is not the best. However:
Two questions can anyone help me with:
Are there any on-line web sources reporting on the US Panel that reported to Bush last June on the credibility of the IPCC Assessments?
Can anyone find out about this European organisation that published this report that has caused the flurry of activity? I’ve heard of it before but is there a web site?
{{ So we can send the CRU heavies around, with baseball bats. }}
Simon, could we have a chat about this soon, and Vanessa, please could you
buy me a Daily Mail today?
Thanks,
Mike
{{ Oh, the ignominy of it, Mike Hulme having to buy a ‘Daily Mail’ (a UK newspaper slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan) }}
.
{email – 2747}
date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:06:31 +0100
from: “Michael Duffy”
subject: BBC Documentary
to: Phil Jones
Hi Phil,
Mike Duffy here from the BBC factual programming department. I wonder if you can help me. We’re researching a documentary about snow which will include the history of British winters. We’d love to do a bit about the Little Ice Age, taking in its causes and how it affected Britain socially and economically.
{{ This email appears to have gone unanswered… Ha, ha, ha….. }}
.
{email – 1885}
date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:07:00 -0000
from: “Bob Ward”
subject: RE: More nonsense on climate change
to: “Phil Jones”
Dear Phil,
Thanks for responding so comprehensively. I have plotted the data before, and as you observe, the trend is up but the result isn’t statistically significant, which I think makes it open to attack. …… I’m not sure how to argue against this point – it appears to imply that there is no statistically significant trend in the global temperature record over the past few years.
From: Phil Jones
Sent: 20 December 2007 13:58
To: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: More nonsense on climate change
Bob,
Quickly re-reading this it sounds as though I’m getting at you. I’m not – just at the idiots who continue to spout this nonsense. It isn’t an issue with climatologists. All understand. If I tried to publish this I would be told by my peers it was obvious and banal.
I will try and hide it in a paper at some point. I could put it on the CRU web site. I would have thought that this writer would have know better! I keep on seeing people saying this same stupid thing. I’m not
adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.
What you have to do is … work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. Trend won’t be statistically significant, but the trend is up.
{{ More hiding of the decline (or the ‘no significant trend’). }}
.
{email – 3499}
cc: Tom Crowley
date: Tue Aug 10 15:47:04 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Mann and Jones (2003)
to: Gabi Hegerl , “Michael E. Mann”
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
In the process of trying to clean it up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. It seems that I used the ‘long’ NH instrumental series back to 1753 that we calculated ….. Not sure why I used this, rather than using the CRU NH record back to 1856 for this purpose. …. Turns it, this has the net effect of decreasing the amplitude of the NH reconstruction by a factor of 0.11/0.14 = 1.29.
Mike
{{ Ahh, so under pressure from the ‘idiots’ at WUWT, Michael Mann discovers an error in his computer model. But no worry, it is only 1.29 (presumably 1.29 degrees per century) }}
.
{email – 0112}
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: Curt Covey,
cc: Gavin Schmidt , 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 on earth are you thinking?
I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. …..instead 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
{{ Naughty boy, Covey – stay on message, and don’t talk to anyone with different ideas – you may get, ‘contaminated’, and we may have to ‘deny’ you…. }}
.
{email – 0665}
This is a nice email from: Rod Eaton, MBA, DMS (Leeds), MCMI, FIET explaining why the CRU is wrong, and why Wiltshire County Council will opt out of the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change (why does Nottingham have any such ‘declaration’? Isn’t local government about emptying the bins and maintaining the schools?)
.
{email – 5215}
date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:01
from: “Kevin Trenberth”
subject: Re: A couple of things
to: “Phil Jones”
Hi Phil
Kevin,
Finally, that idiot Lord Monckton or Brenchly, is making his own DVD, based on that awful Ch 4 program ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ !
Hopefully soon Ofcom (the UK group who assesses complaints against programs) will have ruled on that program – which had many more errors than Al’s DVD.
Cheers
Phil
{{ Beastly man, that Monckton – threatening our grants like that. Shouldn’t be allowed. }}
.
{email – 1683}
date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:56:57 +0100
from: “Jonathan Renouf”
subject: Final thoughts
to: “Keith Briffa”
Hi Keith,
Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.
1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s understood that the world is currently getting warmer. But on the other he’s discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.
2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.
3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as dramatic as he thought. They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.
4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural” fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)
Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.
Look forward to tomorrow.
All best
Jonathan
Jonathan Renouf
Series Producer
Science Department
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
{{ How to make a propaganda documentary, in three easy lesson – by a BBC producer. Impartiality? What the hell is that?… }}
And here is the theme tune, to go with Jonathan Renouf’s BBC ‘documentary’ (above).

.