Here’s a stunning juxtaposition of two emails (released under FOI request and supplied by Christopher Horner to me) from the University of Arizona’s climate scientist Dr. Jonathan Overpeck regarding ‘big oil’ and influence in the climate debate.
First let’s look at Overpeck’s ugly email about Inhofe and big oil, plus a death wish for Oklahoma residents, bold mine:
XXX-‐275
Thu Sep 22 00:12:22 2005
To: hegerl@duke.edu
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Inhofe activities
Cc: TomCrowley Bcc:
Re: Fwd: Inhofe activities
Hi guys – Being on sabbatical, I’m missing more of this kind of stuff than usual. Quite interesting, however, so thanks for sending. Looks like I got it too, but I read your email first.
I did buckle under and read Crichton’s book. It’s pretty amazing. The sad thing is that I’ve talked peers (e.g., Mo Raymo – another Brownie like me and Tom) who they are climate savvy scientists, who actually got fooled by his very selective use of science.
If someone had time, it would be useful to post (e.g., on real climate – must already be there, but I haven’t looked) a foot-note, by foot-note rebuttal of his book. Shocked to see it is getting this kind of traction.
Wish Oklahoma was on the Gulf Coast – then these guys might have a more realistic view. Until then, they’ll just do what the oil industry wants them to do, I guess.
best, peck
========================================================
Now, compare that ugly tone to this one about six months later, bold mine:
========================================================
XXX-‐247
Fri Feb 10 11:55:39 2006
To: pinar.o.yilmaz@exxonmobil.com
From: Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: nice to hear from you!
Cc:
Bcc: X-Attachments:
Hi Pinar – it was great to hear that you were coming to UA, and that you were interested in meeting with this Overpeck guy. I was just in Alaska and ran into Stan Foo in the airport (first time I’ve seen him since Hamilton days), and ditto for Greg Maynard at GSA. Both are doing very well in the minerals side of things. And now you… wonderful.
Bad news is that I’m on sabbatical (actually, this is nice for me and my family that includes two young boys). Moreover, wife (and UA prof) Julie Cole is enroute to Germany for up to a month (! – yes, my fraternity experience should come in helpful as I single-parent two boys). This means, unfortunately, that I can’t fly down to be on campus for your visit. I’m really sorry about this.
However, maybe there is a way to move things forward anyhow?
In addition to seeing and catching up w/ you, I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon- Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front. As you’ve probably figured out, we have one of the top universities in this area, and lots of capability, both in understanding climate change at the global scale down to the regional scale, but also in terms of understanding how climate variability and change impacts society, and also how interdisciplinary climate knowledge can be used to support improved decision-making in society. On these two latter fronts, UA is arguably the best in the nation.
Perhaps we should talk on the phone and figure out what would be best for your UA visit. I could then help line up a mtg for you w/ the relevant people (including Joaquin Ruiz, who is very interested in climate-related activities), and I could also try to be on a phone link w/ this meeting. After Julie gets back from Germany in mid-March, I would be happy to fly down to Texas to meet with you and your colleagues face-to-face. I’d certainly like that instead of just hearing your voice on a phone. So, would you like to chat on the phone next week? Monday is looking tough w/ visitors and a big deadline, Tues a bit better, and Wed-Friday pretty much wide open.
Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks for looking me up too!
Best, peck
—
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Mail and Fedex Address:
Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
715 N. Park Ave. 2nd Floor
University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721
================================================================
The hypocrisy is stunning.
Where potential money is involved (translation – grant), Dr. Overpeck doesn’t display any concerns about being associated with ‘big oil’, in correspondence with a person at Exxon-Mobil, and in fact welcomes some sort of collaboration and goes on to sell the university’s stature to the Exxon-Mobil representative.
The next time somebody calls you a “shill for big oil”, show them this email.
UPDATE2: Here is the entire original email thread: Overpeck Exxon and Mann (PDF)
UPDATE: To be fair, I sent Dr. Overpeck this email shortly after this story was published:
Dear Dr. Overpeck,
This is just a note to inform you that your FOI obtained correspondence with Exxon-Mobile is on display here:
FOI email: science is only influenced by 'big oil' if they do it
I provide you this notice should you wish to defend yourself against the apparent stunning hypocrisy on display. I will print any response you care to offer.
Best regards,
Anthony Watts
Editor
WUWT
I immediately got this autoreply back:
Professor Overpeck is on sabbatical out of the country until the beginning of Fall term, August 2013 and will not be in good constant email contact until then. If your message is urgent, please resend with “URGENT” at the beginning of the subject line, but note that there may still be a delay before he can get back to you. If you have an urgent need related to the UA Inst. of the Environment, please contact IE Project Coordinator Lesa Langan Du Berry at lesa@email.arizona.edu
Another sabbatical? Must be nice.
This might be a good time to remind everyone of how they measured temperature (in a parking lot) at an official USHCN climate station at Dr. Overpeck’s University of Arizona Atmospheric Sciences Dept.
How not to measure temperature part 24
The plaque on the fence reads:
You can bet that station wasn’t in a parking lot in 1867, and thus this speaks to the temporal inhomogenity of station siting. That station has been modified and removed from the United States Historical Climatological Network, since we brought it’s shoddy siting to the attention of the world.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From earlier emails:
13:34:27 2000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: BP
to: shackley
Simon,
Have talked with Tim O about BP and he knows Paul Rutter but reckons he is junior to his two contacts Charlotte grezo (who is on our Panel!) and Simon Worthington.
Tim is meeting Charlotte next week and will do some lobbying and we will also make contact with Simon Worthington.
So I guess there is no necessity to follow up on Paul right now (I’ll wait for Tim’s feedback), but if you feel there is a strong enough UMIST angle then by all means do so (but bear in mind that we will be talking to some other parts of BP).
We’re getting a few letters back from people here too which I will copy onto you – two water companies, Shell and the Foreign Office (the latter is not really business though).
All for now,
Mike
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=246
looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
this largesse?
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4767
…> Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via
> IPIECA about 10 years ago. We used it to come up with the first estimate
> of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. ………
> Bestw ishes
>
> Geoff
http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/0277.txt
I looked at the link http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/overpeck-exxon-and-mann-1.pdf .
“The Mann” was at PSU when he sent this. (Talking about sueing people already.)
I’m not surprised that he “et al” is fighting so hard to keep the UVa emails and files secret.
Nothing like transparency in “climate science”.
PS Any of you honest people in the field of climate science, speak up! Damn the Hockey Sticks! Full speed ahead!!
And there’s more humbug………….
Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
Always follow the money >>>>>>
As further background , Pinar is a geoscientist @ur momisugly exxon ( know this from my time working there ).
To me , these emails don’t represent hypocrisy as much as the current state of scientific research. The fact of the matter is researchers have to get funding wherever they can. Just so happens most of that funding is via the govt one way or another, thus the potential that research is biased to a political conclusion. It’s just human nature to keep your employer ( or funder ) happy so the $s keep coming your way. Until we have double blind funding from both govt & private sector, there will be politicized science research, especially when it comes to subject like AGW which has such large financial & social implications.
Perhaps sources like WUWT are better forums for the truth as no one’s livelyhood is is dependent on this blog ( as far as I know). This appears to be purely a labor of love for Anthony & many of the other regular bloggers.
Has Pinar Yilmaz been shown ‘Peck’s hypocrisy?
Matthew W;
They know full well what is being said about them and by whom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would not be so certain. For starters, “big oil” companies are, by definition, big. What they VP of Finance “knows” and what the VP of Production “knows” and what the VP of Sales “knows” are all rather different things. I’ve dealt with one on one with a variety of industry execs over the years. Some of them were very informed, but most were rather oblivious to the debate as a whole and frequently completely uninformed about what their largesse is funding.
Smokey – Overpeck denies ever interacting with Dr Deming, period.
Mr Watts – I don’t suppose Deming lied to Congress – my point is that, eleven years after the event, memory alone is unreliable – it would be a remarkable feat indeed to remember the exact wording and context of a message from ten years earlier without documentary support.
Then we have the person who is meant to have used the phrase saying I know I would never have said what he’s saying I would have, at least in the context he is implying.
So the status of the quote is hearsay, denied by the alleged quotee. No historian would use such evidence.
Speaking of evidence, there is none that I am a ‘paid shill’; there is no evidence because it is not the case.
REPLY: Well, you ACT like a paid shill, because you attack most anything here on predictable terms, as if that’s a job for you. You run a consulting business, have you ever published any of your work? I’d like to see what sort of consulting you do. From my viewpoint you may very well consult for Greenpeace or some other NGO, and of course I’d expect you to deny it.
As for Deming, thanks for admitting he didn’t lie, and thus if he didn’t, then he’s telling the truth about the email. That’s an eyewitness account. In a court of law, an eyewitness account holds more weight. Therefore, your complaint is denied.
– Anthony
Phil Clarke, why do you continue to defend the indefensible?
In addition to the link milodonharlani provided and Dr. Deming’s testimony to congress, one of Michael Mann’s emails also indicates that it was Overpeck (Peck) who wanted to “contain the putative MWP”:
“I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP” [Medieval Warm Period], even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back. . .”
Michael Mann, University of Virginia
Here is a YouTube video of David Deming testifying before Congress quoting
Jonathan Overpeck’ssomeone’s statement that, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!”As a bonus, there’s a short segment at the end with Christopher Monckton illuminating a touch of IPCC hypocrisy about its adherence to scientific consensus.
One would think after testimony like Deming’s, along with that of other forefront scientists like John Christy and Richard Lindzen, that both sides of Congress would see that the science of AGW is polarized and therefore very uncertain. It is highly imprudent to base policy on one side only of conflicted and inter-contradictory expert testimony. Those doing so are either studiedly ideological or reflexively imbecilic. Really, the fault for the social and economic disasters of AGW rests entirely with Congress; specifically those who have passed and implemented laws based on one side of a conflicted debate.
Phil Clarke,
As Peck admits, his memory may be deficient:
“I have no memory of emailing w/ him, nor any record of doing so (I need to do an exhaustive search I guess), nor any memory of him period. I assume it is possible that I emailed w/ him long ago…”
Dr Deming had testified before Congress:
“I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’.”
Most of us can easily remember events from a decade past, especially if they were of an “astonishing” nature – as Overpeck’s email certainly was. Overpeck was attempting to overturn more than one hundred peer reviewed and cited papers, which stated exactly the opposite. For someone working in the climate change field, a contrary statement like that would certainly be memorable.
Phil Clarke should pick battles he has a chance of winning. This isn’t one of them.
Does Peckers not fear being corrupted by the evil oil money?
Agreed on the snip. Thanks for running a level-headed blog.
big oil, big banks, big pollies, big CAGW scam…
23 Aug: AP: AP Exclusive: Energy loan watchdog an Obama donor
A veteran Wall Street executive who performed an independent review that exonerated the Obama administration’s program of loans to energy companies contributed $52,500 to re-elect President Barack Obama in the months since completing his work, according to an Associated Press review of campaign records…
The campaign contributions to Obama started just weeks after Herbert M. Allison Jr., in congressional testimony in March, minimized concerns that the Energy Department was at high risk in more than $23 billion in federal loans awarded to green energy firms. Two weeks later, Allison began giving to the Obama campaign…
Allison previously was the former head of the government’s mass purchase of toxic Wall Street assets.
Allison did not make any Obama donations during his four-month review of Energy Department loans, and he has a long history of working with and giving money to both political parties…
A former Merrill Lynch executive, Allison worked for several Republican administrations and earned a reputation for tackling troubled federal programs…
Allison left the Treasury Department in 2010 but returned last year to head up the review of energy loans…
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_OBAMA_DONOR?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE =
In case anyone missed Anthony’s later update, Marc Morano’s Climate Depot has an interesting timeline.
Robert of Ottawa says:
August 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Does Peckers not fear being corrupted by the evil oil money?
————————————
He should fear. Look what happened to the last lot they supported!
George Orwell coined a term for this; doublethink.
Cannot agree more – such hypocrisy:
Lets look at some of the very ugly DEATH wishes posted here with moderators agreements
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/catlin-crew-out-of-time/#comment-123269
Chemist says:
April 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I’ll be the one to say it: I hope they die so that their deaths will draw attention to the truth of this issue. If they succeed, then it will be just another propaganda
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/04/question-for-catlin-arctic-survey-what-happens-to-the-fuel-drums/#comment-126853
Daniel L. Taylor says: May 5, 2009 at 6:51 am
…Maybe I’m just a cold hearted SoB, but in my opinion they need to freeze to death on that ice. The world needs to see the headline “Global Warming scientists …
I’m sorry, but if the deaths of everyone on that ice survey team helps raise awareness of and opposition to the global warming political train wreck then so be it. It needs to happen.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/admiration-for-the-catlin-explorers/#comment-105433
Rachelle Young says:
March 26, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I would be content to see all three of them freeze to death or be eaten by ‘endangered’ polar bears
============
Is Overpeck’s statement worse than wishing someone dies?
Your link to the University of Arizona station 028815 is dated 2007. The station continued reporting data for almost another year, but we don’t know what form the station was in (nor where it was). I express doubt as to the location because the online maps show it under a building, so some construction might have been taking place.
TomE and others on “sabbaticals” :
In academia you have sabbaticals, study break. Outside, you have “annual leave” entitlements (if you are lucky). The word “holiday” is strictly taboo. Uttering it will result in SIB (sharp intake of breath). In my experience academia is a combination of a monastery and a thieves’ kitchen. Added to that is the extraordinary propensity to stab oneself in the back as well as routinely stab others.
Flagrant editing of material released under FOI is not a recent phenomenon. I have seen documents altered with magic tape, correction fluid, so obvious even a 5-year old could see it.
Recommended viewing if you are contemplating going into academia: “The Name of the Rose” (film version of Umberto Eco’s book).
What I noticed is that his first email is barely literate. Must be nice to be a rich college professor, yet have the grammar skills of an 8th grader.
SergeiMK says:
August 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm
No, for that we have to turn to Phil Jones, who found the actual death of someone to be cheering news.
That is cringe worthy.
How obsequious can you get ?
Overblowns obvious delight at being “thrown a biscuit” is only matched by his rolling over for a tummy tickle by the over familiarity and disclosure of family business.
I can imagine the Exxon executive reporting “in the bag” after the one correspondence.
Louis – a 1K reconstruction would not have included or contained the MWP, whereas a 2K reconstruction did contain the period. In the author’s own words:- In this email, I was discussing the importance of extending paleoclimate reconstructions far enough back in time that we could determine the onset and duration of the putative “Medieval Warm Period”. Since this describes an interval in time, it has to have both a beginning and end. But reconstructions that only go back 1000 years, as most reconstructions did at the time, didn’t reach far enough back to isolate the beginning of this period, i.e. they are not long enough to “contain” the interval in question. In more recent work, such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007, the paleoclimate reconstructions stretch nearly 2000 years back in time, which is indeed far enough back in time to “contain” or “isolate” this period in time.
Smokey says “Most of us can easily remember events from a decade past, especially if they were of an “astonishing” nature – as Overpeck’s email certainly was. ”
So we agree that Deming is making an extraordinary claim,; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – and Deming has none.
You don’t understand , by the fact the money gets used for ‘the cause ‘ the money becomes cleansed of all sins of association, think holy-water or confessions in application and you see how it works. Of course when its not used for ‘the cause ‘ its retains it ‘dirty ‘ nature and on one can be trusted how sups from such evil sources.
Once again this is NOT SCIENCE its much close to religion and politics in these peoples minds , when you understand that you can understand how there guys can do these things and keep a straight face.
SergeiMK says:
August 26, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Well aside from your post being a red herring, lets look at it in more detail. First of all, you posted three quotes, but your above statement (“wish”) can only be applied to the first one of the three, at most. And because you actually cited your sources (props on that), it was easy to see what you left out on them.
Looking at the first quote, the end of that comment had this phrase:
Why didn’t you include that part of the comment? In the second quote, you have a “…”. So what’s included in that “…”? How about this:
How much suffering has there already been due to the global economic collapse? Carbon regulation is going to cause an even greater contraction of the global economy than we just witnessed. How many people will die sooner due to the reduced living standards, the stress, the hardship? How many people will continue to live in poverty because doors of opportunity were shut? The last global depression led directly to World War II. How many people will die if stress between nations struggling for energy, wealth, and improved living conditions reaches the breaking point and the world goes back to war?
Sure doesn’t sound like a malicious person to me. And the final person you quoted also said this a few sentences after your out-of-context quote:
A completely logical and true statement that gives at least some justification for them being “content” (definitely different than wishing) if the team died.
So I’m wondering, Anthony writes a post with complete e-mails rather than just cherry-picked sentences. Why couldn’t you do the same with your red-herring argument?
-Scott