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.
Arrrgh! Repeated typo in my comment above.
VS was the commenter not ‘VC’. Sorry VS!
Senility settling in. But I was a C, C++, VC programmer for a while. Yeah, I’m going with that. Now where did I park the car?
I remain unmoved by the likes of Mann (of Bugger U…) et al… show me the data and the code… all of it… nothing more nothing less until that time I consider this ‘science’, so called, as a scam to get tax-payers money and live on the public dole a.k.a. welfare cheating…
Climate can only be considered a science iff all variables are known… which they are NOT… case closed… Any high school kid knows that a polynomial with more than one unknown is…??? is…??? think hard Mann et al… think really hard and it will come to you…
Don’t get me wrong, climate change IS real and has been changing longer than we mere mortals have walked this path. It seems that the Sun might have a lot more to do with it than anyone might think… Let’s give credit where it is due.
Oh yeah… the latest e-mail dump… I suspect there will be more coming down the pike… sooner or later… count on it 🙂
later
vince
What fascinates me in reading these emails is how “scientists” attempt to bully the media and other scientists into toeing the company line in furthering the “cause.” Failing to push the cause leads to loss of intimidation in front of peers and “denying” access. In light of this, we know who the true deniers are.
I don’t think that many are going to be fooled this time around by the spin which characterizes private conversations as anti-science, deceptive or examples of bullying. The work of the scientists, whose private conversations have been stolen and made public, stands on its own merits, as has been shown by five independent investigations. If there are problems with their work, your comments should be targeted there. Do your own research and publish the results. The net effect of all these efforts will become settled science. Your failure to publish research refuting the mainstream position speaks for itself, as does you persistent effort to demonize scientists who actually publish their work.
Hugh Pepper says:
Mr. Pepper, the emails were not “stolen,” because they are public property and nothing is missing. They were obviously copied by someone on the inside. Otherwise, a (fictional) hacker would have provided everything. Many emails are missing frrom the first email leak. Why are they missing, if not to protect the identity of the whistleblower?
Please also dispense with the fiction that any of the investigations were “independent.” They were not. Others have noted that Dr. Mann took part in meetings to formulate and decide what questions he would be asked. Dr. Jones remained in his office with full pay and benefits during his temporary time out. Furthermore, not one opposing witness was permitted to make a statement, or even attend any of the investigations. Every investigation was a coverup of wrongdoing, no more and no less.
Hugh Pepper;
I don’t think that many are going to be fooled this time around by the spin which characterizes private conversations as anti-science, deceptive or examples of bullying.>>>
REPLY
I think you are partly right. Those who have a modicum of sense and bother to read for themselves who said what, when they they said it, and what it was in regard to, will not be fooled in the slightest. They know rampant dishonesty when they see it.
Hugh Pepper;
The work of the scientists, whose private conversations have been stolen and made public, stands on its own merits>>>
REPLY
Darn right it does. Or perhaps collapses like the house of cards it is would be more accurate. Read those “private” conversations plotting to eliminate evidence, exclude contrary work by other scientists, trying to get people fired for disagreeing, co-operating with financial companies to provide evidence that will support already made investments in carbon trading. Indeed, left to “stand” on its own “merit” it is a house of cards collapsed into a stinking pile of poo and anyone with an ounce of ability to think on their own can see that. BTW, they don’t give a flying **** if the emails were stolen or public property in the first place. It doesn’t matter. They say what they say and it should turn your stomach to read them.
Hugh Pepper;
as has been shown by five independent investigations.>>>
REPLY
I read the questions that were asked in those investigations, how they were answered, and the conclusions drawn. Same answer as above. It should turn your stomach to read how those investigations were carefully conducted so as to arrive at a conclusions already written before the investigation started. I particularly liked the one into Michael Mann where the investigation took all the charges against Mann, dismissed all except one of them out of hand, and then turned in a “nothing to see here” verdict. That would be the same administration that just got caught “investigating” sexual assaults in their football team’s locker room and decidiing there was nothing to it until they got caught red handed whitewashing the whole episode. Stomach turning.
Hugh Pepper;
If there are problems with their work, your comments should be targeted there. Do your own research and publish the results. >>>
REPLY
What do you think this site is about? It is chalk full of exactly THAT. Long threads with detailed analysis of both skeptic and non skeptic science examined in detail. Most if not all the alarmist science exposed for what it is, science fiction. More importantly, the e-mails we’re talking about corroborate the accusations of faulty science that were made before the e-mails were released, and the e-mails clearly show that the “scientists” knowingly conspired to publish contrived results that they knew in advance were wrong.
Not to mention that there is skeptical science published all over this blog, and that warmists are just as open to critique it as are skeptics. Oddly, the warmists don’t show up. They’re happy to snipe from the safety of their own politicaly motivated blogs (hey, the WARMISTS labelled RealoClimate a “PR” site, not us!) where rebuttal is heavily edited to as to make it non sensical, or deleted completely. Why is that Hugh? Why do they fear open debate?
Hugh Pepper;
Your failure to publish research refuting the mainstream position speaks for itself, as does you persistent effort to demonize scientists who actually publish their work.>>>
REPLY
LOL. Publish their work? You mean publish their results and then REFUSE to show their work. Then we read the ClimateGate emails and we find out WHY they refuse to show their work. Turns out it is fiction.
Hugh Pepper;
Your failure to publish research refuting the mainstream position speaks for itself,>>>
OK Hugh, let’s see you defend the “mainstream” position. Can I ask what part of the mainstream position stands on firm ground? Let’s go through the big ones:
1. The Temperature Record. Ooops. The temperature record is about 150 years long and shows warming and cooling phases folllowing each other with a general upward trend. The upward trend from before 1920, the year when CO2 supposedly started increasing measurably, and the period after, show no appreciable difference. In fact, the last fifteen years have been flat or slightly declining.
2. Ocean Heat Content: The first really comprehensive data we have on OHC is from the deployment of the Argo Buoys… which show OHC has been declining.
3. Millenial Reconstructions: Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” turns out to come from a computer program that draws a hockey stick no matter what data it is provided. Keith Briffa’s work turned out to be based on just twelve trees from Siberia, and half the data from just one of them. One tree is supposed to accurately show the temperature of the earth for a thousand years? No wonder they don’t want to show their work! Then there was the graphic that was supposed to grace the cover of the last IPCC report. It was pulled back at the last minute because it turned out that Jones and Mann had truncated the tree ring data that was supposed to be accurate in terms of global temperatures and replaced it with other data. They didn’t want anyone to notice that the supposedly accurate tree rings didn’t match the temperature data for about half the temperature record. The tree ring data started to “decline” at just the point it was supposed to show an increase, so they deleted it and replaced it with temperature data. This was Michael Mann’s “trick” that he first pulled off in a paper published in Nature, and suddenly Phil Jones corroborates the total evisceration of anything remotely like actual science by doing the same, hence his comment that he had completed Mike’s “Nature trick” in order to “hide the decline”. Tell me Hugh, does that sound like science? Tell me Hugh, if the tree ring data clearly does NOT match the temperature record for nearly HALF the temperature record, and nobody can explain WHY, then WHY should we consider any tree ring data from before the temperature record that started in the mid 1800’s to be anything other than a wild *ss guess?
4. Sensitivity. First they figured 5 to 8 degrees. Then 3 to 4.5 degrees. Now an upper limity of 2,6 degrees is the latest “science”, See the problem here Hugh is that you can’t have it both ways. If sensitivity is HIGH, then we would have seen MAJOR temperature changes by now. But we haven’t, so sensitivity is more likely to be LOW. Now if it is LOW…it doesn’t matter. Based on the “known physics” over half of whatever CO2 doubling is going to cause is ALREADY HAPPENING, and we can BARELY MEASURE IT.
I could go on. and on. and ON. But how about you throw one out there Hugh? What basic tenet of the AGW theory is there left that hasn’t been similarly made a mockery of in the same way that the above four points have done?
C’mon Hugh. You keep complaining about us not engaging onthe science. So, I’m engaging. Whaddya got?
“Hugh Pepper says:
November 26, 2011 at 12:52 pm
The work of the scientists, …stands on its own merits, as has been shown by five independent investigations.”
How does this agree with the following quote:
Lord Oxburgh wrote,
Dear Dr Mcintyre, Thank you for your message. What you report may or may not be the case. But as I have pointed out to you previously the science was not the subject of our study. Yours sincerely, Ron Oxburgh
Ralph says:
November 25, 2011 at 1:56 pm
“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”
Jo Nova says this of Prof Vincent Courtillot:
Video’s bore me usually, but I enjoyed watching Courtillot — he’s possibly the clearest, fastest, crispest speaker I’ve ever heard, and it’s all the more amazing because he speaks with an accent. Don’t misunderstand — there are no jokes, no satire, and no punch lines here, just an honest summary of the state of the current scientific play, especially with his synopsis of the cosmic ray theory. (He is a colleague of Nir Shaviv).
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/prof-vincent-courtillot-speaks-with-clarity/
One of the best summaries I’ve heard. Check it out. I guarantee you won’t be disappointed
Thanks for alerting me to my latest appearance in the Climategate archive. I think my freelance BBC affiliation has led you to see things in my email to Phil Jones that aren’t there. Your commentary on the exchange says I’m seeking to suppress the cooling story. As the email explicitly states, however, I was simply suggesting that Jones submit what he told me to the CC-Net forum, to put the alternative side to what was likely to be a widely reported issue. Encouragement to publish alternative viewsp hardly constitutes an attempt at suppression.