This post will be a top “sticky” post for some time, new essays will appear below this one. UPDATES as emails are noted, will appear below. – Anthony
UPDATE8 3/19/13: Jeff Condon has received legal notice from UEA warning him not to release the password. So far, I have not seen any such notice. For those who demand it be released, take note. – Anthony
A number of climate skeptic bloggers (myself included) have received this message yesterday. While I had planned to defer announcing this until a reasonable scan could be completed, some other bloggers have let the cat out of the bag. I provide this introductory email sent by “FOIA” without editing or comment. I do have one email, which I found quite humorous, which I will add at the end so that our friends know that this is valid. Update – the first email I posted apparently was part of an earlier release (though I had not seen it, there are a number of duplicates in the all.zip file) so I have added a second one.
Update 2: Additional emails have been added – Anthony
Update 3: Delingpole weighs in.
Climategate: FOIA – The Man Who Saved The World – Telegraph Blogs
I hope one day that FOIA’s true identity can be revealed so that he can be properly applauded and rewarded for his signal service to mankind. He is a true hero, who deserves to go on the same roll of honour as Norman Borlaug, Julian Simon and Steve McIntyre: people who put truth, integrity and the human race first and ideology second. Unlike the misanthropic greenies who do exactly the opposite.
Update4: An email showing some insight on the beginning of the use of the word “denier” along with some demonstrated coziness with media activists.
Update5: Mike Mann rages and releases the attack dogs Monbiot, Romm, Media Matters and others in response to a perfectly valid and polite inquiry from the Wall Street Journal, suggesting a smear before the reporter even write the story.
Update6: From Junkscience.com, who spotted this exchange: Wigley accuses IPCC and lead authors of ‘dishonest presentations of model results’; Accuses Mann of deception; Mann admits
Update7: From Junkscience.com, Briffa worries that manmade environmental change distorts tree-ring analysis.
===========================================================
Subject: FOIA 2013: the password
It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.
Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 😉
If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).
The “all.7z” password is [redacted]
DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.
Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.
I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.
Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.
Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.
I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.
I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.
That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.
If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…
The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.
Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.
It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.
Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.
Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.
We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.
If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.
I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).
Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.
Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).
Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.
I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.
More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.
Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.
Over and out.
Mr. FOIA
===============================================================
Here is one email that I found interesting and humorous, email addresses redacted as a courtesy. Note the bolding:
===============================================================
—–Original Message—–
From: Simon Tett
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 1:36 PM
To: matcollins@xxx.xx.xxx
Cc: t.osborn@xxx.xx.xxx ; k.briffa@xxx.xx.xxx
Subject: Paleo-Paper
Mat,
The papers looks very good. Hope these comments aren’t too late…. I
don’t think I need to see it again.
Simon
Response to reviewers
I couldn’t read your letter — PS files as attachments seem to get
munged by our firewall/email scanner so I’ve just looked at the paper
to see if I think you’ve dealt with the reviewers comments.
Editors comments:
3) Don’t think you have dealt with the enhanced multi-decadal
variability in the paper.
Reviewer B.
1) Didn’t see a justification for use of tree-rings and not using ice
cores — the obvious one is that ice cores are no good — see Jones et
al, 1998.
2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann
et al did (I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because
we think it is crap!)
3) No justification in the paper for the 9 regions. I think there is
justification in the JGR Briffa paper.
4) That is a good point — I would strongly suspect that the control has
a lot less variance than the observations over the last century —
not the ALL run though!
5) No response to this in the paper. I suspect we are doing better
stats than all the rest though!
Specific Questions/comments
1) That is a good point: How about (though a bit germanic)
“Comparison of simulated northern hemisphere variability with
paleo-temperature …”
Didn’t see that you had dealt with points 5 and 6.
Ditto for point 11.
Figures.
2-4 seem to be much as submitted!
Figs 5-8 — do you want to use colour? It would cost!
Ref C.
Don’t seem to have dealt with point a) and it is quite an important
point as well!
Point b is a reasonable point which I think you go some way to dealing
with. I suggest you stress on page 20 the “exploratory” nature of our
analysis. I am just about to start such a run once I have sorted out
the orbital forcings and how to calculate their radiative forcings.
Point c — not sure what the referee is saying here!
Comments on the MS.
Page 9 “pith” means
Same sentence I think you need to add that they are grouped by
species as well (the rest of the para implies that is what is
done).
Last sentence of penultimate para: stress that decadal to century
scale variability is what we are interested mainly because of its
importance in deciding if recent climate change is anthropogenic or
natural.
First full para on page 13 — didn’t really follow this para.
2nd para, line 11 consider “in comparison” -> “when compared”
Page 14, first para — consider expanding the abbreviations i.e CAS ->
CAS (Central Asia).
Page 20, last para. insert ‘in the four simulations’ after ‘six
“negative spikes”‘.
Section 10 should be Appendix A.
—
Dr Simon Tett Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.
Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Prediction and Research
London Road Bracknell Berkshire RG12 2SY United Kingdom
Tel: +44 xxxxxxx Fax: +44 xxxxxx
E-mail: xxxxxxx
====================================================
Second email (added after original post)
====================================================
—–Original Message—–
From: Michael E. Mann
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:14 AM
To: Edward Cook
Cc: tom crowley ; Michael E. Mann ; esper@xxxxxx ; Jonathan
Overpeck ; Keith Briffa ; mhughes@xxxxxxx ; rbradley@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: hockey stick
<x-flowed>
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your message. I’m forwarding this to Ray and Malcolm to reply to
some of your statements below,
mike
At 10:59 AM 5/2/01 -0400, Edward Cook wrote:
> >Ed,
> >
> >heard some rumor that you are involved in a non-hockey stick
> >reconstruction
> >of northern hemisphere temperatures. I am very intrigued to learn about
> >this – are these results suggesting the so called Medieval Warm Period
> >may
> >be warmer than the early/mid 20th century?
> >
> >any enlightenment on this would be most appreciated, Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >Thomas J. Crowley
> >Dept. of Oceanography
> >Texas A&M University
> >College Station, TX 77843-3146
> >979-xxxxxxx
> >979-xxxxxxx
> >979-xxxxxxx
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>As rumors often are, the one you heard is not entirely accurate. So, I will
>take some time here to explain for you, Mike, and others exactly what was
>done and what the motivation was, in an effort to hopefully avoid any
>misunderstanding. I especially want to avoid any suggestion that this work
>was being done to specifically counter or refute the “hockey stick”.
>However, it does suggest (as do other results from your EBM, Peck’s work,
>the borehole data, and Briffa and Jones large-scale proxy estimates) that
>there are unresolved (I think) inconsistencies in the low-frequency aspects
>of the hockey stick series compared to other results. So, any comparisons
>with the hockey stick were made with that spirit in mind.
>
>What Jan Esper and I are working on (mostly Jan with me as second author)
>is a paper that was in response to Broecker’s Science Perspectives piece on
>the Medieval Warm Period. Specifically, we took strong exception to his
>claim that tree rings are incapable of preserving century time scale
>temperature variability. Of course, if Broecker had read the literature, he
>would have known that what he claimed was inaccurate. Be that as it may,
>Jan had been working on a project, as part of his post-doc here, to look at
>large-scale, low-frequency patterns of tree growth and climate in long
>tree-ring records provided to him by Fritz Schweingruber. With the addition
>of a couple of sites from foxtail pine in California, Jan amassed a
>collection of 14 tree-ring sites scattered somewhat uniformly over the
>30-70 degree NH latitude band, with most extending back 1000-1200 years.
>All of the sites are from temperature-sensitive locations (i.e. high
>elevation or high northern latitude. It is, as far as I know, the largest,
>longest, and most spatially representative set of such
>temperature-sensitive tree-ring data yet put together for the NH
>extra-tropics.
>
>In order to preserve maximum low-frequency variance, Jan used the Regional
>Curve Standardization (RCS) method, used previously by Briffa and myself
>with great success. Only here, Jan chose to do things in a somewhat radical
>fashion. Since the replication at each site was generally insufficient to
>produce a robust RCS chronology back to, say, AD 1000, Jan pooled all of
>the original measurement series into 2 classes of growth trends: non-linear
>(~700 ring-width series) and linear (~500 ring-width series). He than
>performed independent RCS on the each of the pooled sets and produced 2 RCS
>chronologies with remarkably similar multi-decadal and centennial
>low-frequency characteristics. These chronologies are not good at
>preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of
>sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are
>probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than
>averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology
>extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm Period –
>Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong decadal
>fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of
>neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH. The punctuations also appear,
>in some cases, to be related to known major volcanic eruptions.
>
>Jan originally only wanted to show this NH extra-tropical RCS chronology in
>a form scaled to millimeters of growth to show how forest productivity and
>carbon sequestration may be modified by climate variability and change over
>relatively long time scales. However, I encouraged him to compare his
>series with NH instrumental temperature data and the proxy estimates
>produced by Jones, Briffa, and Mann in order bolster the claim that his
>unorthodox method of pooling the tree-ring data was producing a record that
>was indeed related to temperatures in some sense. This he did by linearly
>rescaling his RCS chronology from mm of growth to temperature anomalies. In
>so doing, Jan demonstrated that his series, on inter-decadal time scales
>only, was well correlated to the annual NH instrumental record. This result
>agreed extremely well with those of Jones and Briffa. Of course, some of
>the same data were used by them, but probably not more than 40 percent
>(Briffa in particular), so the comparison is based on mostly, but not
>fully, independent data. The similarity indicated that Jan’s approach was
>valid for producing a useful reconstruction of multi-decadal temperature
>variability (probably weighted towards the warm-season months, but it is
>impossible to know by how much) over a larger region of the NH
>extra-tropics than that produced before by Jones and Briffa. It also
>revealed somewhat more intense cooling in the Little Ice Age that is more
>consistent with what the borehole temperatures indicate back to AD 1600.
>This result also bolsters the argument for a reasonably large-scale
>Medieval Warm Period that may not be as warm as the late 20th century, but
>is of much(?) greater significance than that produced previously.
>
>Of course, Jan also had to compare his record with the hockey stick since
>that is the most prominent and oft-cited record of NH temperatures covering
>the past 1000 years. The results were consistent with the differences shown
>by others, mainly in the century-scale of variability. Again, the Esper
>series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little
>Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the
>hockey stick. Yet the two series agree reasonably well on inter-decadal
>timescales, even though they may not be 1:1 expressions of the same
>temperature window (i.e. annual vs. warm-season weighted). However, the
>tree-ring series used in the hockey stick are warm-season weighted as well,
>so the difference between “annual” and “warm-season weighted” is probably
>not as large as it might seem, especially before the period of instrumental
>data (e.g. pre-1700) in the hockey stick. So, they both share a significant
>degree of common interdecal temperature information (and some, but not
>much, data), but do not co-vary well on century timescales. Again, this has
>all been shown before by others using different temperature
>reconstructions, but Jan’s result is probably the most comprehensive
>expression (I believe) of extra-tropical NH temperatures back to AD 800 on
>multi-decadal and century time scales.
>
>Now back to the Broecker perspectives piece. I felt compelled to refute
>Broecker’s erroneous claim that tree rings could not preserve long-term
>temperature information. So, I organized a “Special Wally Seminar” in which
>I introduced the topic to him and the packed audience using Samuel
>Johnson’s famous “I refute it thus” statement in the form of “Jan Esper and
>I refute Broecker thus”. Jan than presented, in a very detailed and well
>espressed fashion, his story and Broecker became an instant convert. In
>other words, Wally now believes that long tree-ring records, when properly
>selected and processed, can preserve low-frequency temperature variability
>on centennial time scales. Others in the audience came away with the same
>understanding, one that we dendrochronologists always knew to be the case.
>This was the entire purpose of Jan’s work and the presentation of it to
>Wally and others. Wally had expressed some doubts about the hockey stick
>previously to me and did so again in his perspectives article. So, Jan’s
>presentation strongly re-enforced Wally’s opinion about the hockey stick,
>which he has expressed to others including several who attended a
>subsequent NOAA meeting at Lamont. I have no control over what Wally says
>and only hope that we can work together to reconcile, in a professional,
>friendly manner, the differences between the hockey stick and other proxy
>temperature records covering the past 1000 years. This I would like to do.
>
>I do think that the Medieval Warm Period was a far more significant event
>than has been recognized previously, as much because the high-resolution
>data to evaluate it had not been available before. That is much less so the
>case now. It is even showing up strongly now in long SH tree-ring series.
>However, there is still the question of how strong this event was in the
>tropics. I maintain that we do not have the proxies to tell us that now.
>The tropical ice core data are very difficult to interpret as temperature
>proxies (far worse than tree rings for sure and maybe even unrelated to
>temperatures in any simple linear sense as is often assumed), so I do not
>believe that they can be used alone as records to test for the existence of
>a Medieval Warm Period in the tropics. That being the case, there are
>really no other high-resolution records from the tropics to use, and the
>teleconnections between long extra-tropical proxies and the tropics are, I
>believe, far too tenuous and probably unstable to use to sort out this
>issue.
>
>So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably
>a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was
>persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in
>the 20th century. However, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it
>exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the
>precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do
>find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event
>to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain’s
>commment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated. If, as some
>people believe, a degree of symmetry in climate exists between the
>hemispheres, which would appear to arise from the tropics, then the
>existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the extra-tropics of the NH and SH
>argues for its existence in the tropics as well. Only time and an enlarged
>suite of proxies that extend into the tropics will tell if this is true.
>
>I hope that what I have written clarifies the rumor and expresses my views
>more completely and accurately.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed
>
>==================================
>Dr. Edward R. Cook
>Doherty Senior Scholar
>Tree-Ring Laboratory
>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
>Palisades, New York 10964 USA
>Phone: 1-845-xxxxxx
>Fax: 1-845-xxxxxx
>Email: drdendro@xxxxxxx
>==================================
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxx Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
—–Original Message—–
From: Michael E. Mann
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:14 AM
To: Edward Cook
Cc: tom crowley ; Michael E. Mann ; esper@xxxxxxxx ; Jonathan
Overpeck ; Keith Briffa ; mhughes@xxxxxx ; rbradley@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: hockey stick
<x-flowed>
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your message. I’m forwarding this to Ray and Malcolm to reply to
some of your statements below,
mike
At 10:59 AM 5/2/01 -0400, Edward Cook wrote:
> >Ed,
> >
> >heard some rumor that you are involved in a non-hockey stick
> >reconstruction
> >of northern hemisphere temperatures. I am very intrigued to learn about
> >this – are these results suggesting the so called Medieval Warm Period
> >may
> >be warmer than the early/mid 20th century?
> >
> >any enlightenment on this would be most appreciated, Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >Thomas J. Crowley
> >Dept. of Oceanography
> >Texas A&M University
> >College Station, TX 77843-3146
> >979-xxxxx
> >979-xxxxx
> >979-xxxxx
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>As rumors often are, the one you heard is not entirely accurate. So, I will
>take some time here to explain for you, Mike, and others exactly what was
>done and what the motivation was, in an effort to hopefully avoid any
>misunderstanding. I especially want to avoid any suggestion that this work
>was being done to specifically counter or refute the “hockey stick”.
>However, it does suggest (as do other results from your EBM, Peck’s work,
>the borehole data, and Briffa and Jones large-scale proxy estimates) that
>there are unresolved (I think) inconsistencies in the low-frequency aspects
>of the hockey stick series compared to other results. So, any comparisons
>with the hockey stick were made with that spirit in mind.
>
>What Jan Esper and I are working on (mostly Jan with me as second author)
>is a paper that was in response to Broecker’s Science Perspectives piece on
>the Medieval Warm Period. Specifically, we took strong exception to his
>claim that tree rings are incapable of preserving century time scale
>temperature variability. Of course, if Broecker had read the literature, he
>would have known that what he claimed was inaccurate. Be that as it may,
>Jan had been working on a project, as part of his post-doc here, to look at
>large-scale, low-frequency patterns of tree growth and climate in long
>tree-ring records provided to him by Fritz Schweingruber. With the addition
>of a couple of sites from foxtail pine in California, Jan amassed a
>collection of 14 tree-ring sites scattered somewhat uniformly over the
>30-70 degree NH latitude band, with most extending back 1000-1200 years.
>All of the sites are from temperature-sensitive locations (i.e. high
>elevation or high northern latitude. It is, as far as I know, the largest,
>longest, and most spatially representative set of such
>temperature-sensitive tree-ring data yet put together for the NH
>extra-tropics.
>
>In order to preserve maximum low-frequency variance, Jan used the Regional
>Curve Standardization (RCS) method, used previously by Briffa and myself
>with great success. Only here, Jan chose to do things in a somewhat radical
>fashion. Since the replication at each site was generally insufficient to
>produce a robust RCS chronology back to, say, AD 1000, Jan pooled all of
>the original measurement series into 2 classes of growth trends: non-linear
>(~700 ring-width series) and linear (~500 ring-width series). He than
>performed independent RCS on the each of the pooled sets and produced 2 RCS
>chronologies with remarkably similar multi-decadal and centennial
>low-frequency characteristics. These chronologies are not good at
>preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of
>sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are
>probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than
>averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology
>extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm Period –
>Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong decadal
>fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of
>neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH. The punctuations also appear,
>in some cases, to be related to known major volcanic eruptions.
>
>Jan originally only wanted to show this NH extra-tropical RCS chronology in
>a form scaled to millimeters of growth to show how forest productivity and
>carbon sequestration may be modified by climate variability and change over
>relatively long time scales. However, I encouraged him to compare his
>series with NH instrumental temperature data and the proxy estimates
>produced by Jones, Briffa, and Mann in order bolster the claim that his
>unorthodox method of pooling the tree-ring data was producing a record that
>was indeed related to temperatures in some sense. This he did by linearly
>rescaling his RCS chronology from mm of growth to temperature anomalies. In
>so doing, Jan demonstrated that his series, on inter-decadal time scales
>only, was well correlated to the annual NH instrumental record. This result
>agreed extremely well with those of Jones and Briffa. Of course, some of
>the same data were used by them, but probably not more than 40 percent
>(Briffa in particular), so the comparison is based on mostly, but not
>fully, independent data. The similarity indicated that Jan’s approach was
>valid for producing a useful reconstruction of multi-decadal temperature
>variability (probably weighted towards the warm-season months, but it is
>impossible to know by how much) over a larger region of the NH
>extra-tropics than that produced before by Jones and Briffa. It also
>revealed somewhat more intense cooling in the Little Ice Age that is more
>consistent with what the borehole temperatures indicate back to AD 1600.
>This result also bolsters the argument for a reasonably large-scale
>Medieval Warm Period that may not be as warm as the late 20th century, but
>is of much(?) greater significance than that produced previously.
>
>Of course, Jan also had to compare his record with the hockey stick since
>that is the most prominent and oft-cited record of NH temperatures covering
>the past 1000 years. The results were consistent with the differences shown
>by others, mainly in the century-scale of variability. Again, the Esper
>series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little
>Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the
>hockey stick. Yet the two series agree reasonably well on inter-decadal
>timescales, even though they may not be 1:1 expressions of the same
>temperature window (i.e. annual vs. warm-season weighted). However, the
>tree-ring series used in the hockey stick are warm-season weighted as well,
>so the difference between “annual” and “warm-season weighted” is probably
>not as large as it might seem, especially before the period of instrumental
>data (e.g. pre-1700) in the hockey stick. So, they both share a significant
>degree of common interdecal temperature information (and some, but not
>much, data), but do not co-vary well on century timescales. Again, this has
>all been shown before by others using different temperature
>reconstructions, but Jan’s result is probably the most comprehensive
>expression (I believe) of extra-tropical NH temperatures back to AD 800 on
>multi-decadal and century time scales.
>
>Now back to the Broecker perspectives piece. I felt compelled to refute
>Broecker’s erroneous claim that tree rings could not preserve long-term
>temperature information. So, I organized a “Special Wally Seminar” in which
>I introduced the topic to him and the packed audience using Samuel
>Johnson’s famous “I refute it thus” statement in the form of “Jan Esper and
>I refute Broecker thus”. Jan than presented, in a very detailed and well
>espressed fashion, his story and Broecker became an instant convert. In
>other words, Wally now believes that long tree-ring records, when properly
>selected and processed, can preserve low-frequency temperature variability
>on centennial time scales. Others in the audience came away with the same
>understanding, one that we dendrochronologists always knew to be the case.
>This was the entire purpose of Jan’s work and the presentation of it to
>Wally and others. Wally had expressed some doubts about the hockey stick
>previously to me and did so again in his perspectives article. So, Jan’s
>presentation strongly re-enforced Wally’s opinion about the hockey stick,
>which he has expressed to others including several who attended a
>subsequent NOAA meeting at Lamont. I have no control over what Wally says
>and only hope that we can work together to reconcile, in a professional,
>friendly manner, the differences between the hockey stick and other proxy
>temperature records covering the past 1000 years. This I would like to do.
>
>I do think that the Medieval Warm Period was a far more significant event
>than has been recognized previously, as much because the high-resolution
>data to evaluate it had not been available before. That is much less so the
>case now. It is even showing up strongly now in long SH tree-ring series.
>However, there is still the question of how strong this event was in the
>tropics. I maintain that we do not have the proxies to tell us that now.
>The tropical ice core data are very difficult to interpret as temperature
>proxies (far worse than tree rings for sure and maybe even unrelated to
>temperatures in any simple linear sense as is often assumed), so I do not
>believe that they can be used alone as records to test for the existence of
>a Medieval Warm Period in the tropics. That being the case, there are
>really no other high-resolution records from the tropics to use, and the
>teleconnections between long extra-tropical proxies and the tropics are, I
>believe, far too tenuous and probably unstable to use to sort out this
>issue.
>
>So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably
>a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was
>persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in
>the 20th century. However, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it
>exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the
>precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do
>find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event
>to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain’s
>commment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated. If, as some
>people believe, a degree of symmetry in climate exists between the
>hemispheres, which would appear to arise from the tropics, then the
>existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the extra-tropics of the NH and SH
>argues for its existence in the tropics as well. Only time and an enlarged
>suite of proxies that extend into the tropics will tell if this is true.
>
>I hope that what I have written clarifies the rumor and expresses my views
>more completely and accurately.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Ed
>
>==================================
>Dr. Edward R. Cook
>Doherty Senior Scholar
>Tree-Ring Laboratory
>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
>Palisades, New York 10964 USA
>Phone: 1-845-xxxxx
>Fax: 1-845-xxxxx
>Email: drdendro@xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx
>==================================
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
=========================================================================
Here is an email from Tom Wigley on Naomi Oreskes. Bold mine. (h/t to Junkscience.com)
=========================================================================
date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:16:40 -0700
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Re: [Fwd: Your Submission]
to: Phil Jones
Phil,
This is weird. I used Web of Knowledge, “create citation report”, and
added 1999 thru 2009 numbers. Can’t do you becoz of the too many PDJs
problem.
Here are 3 results …
Kevin Trenberth, 9049
Me, 5523
Ben, 2407
The max on their list has only 3365 cites over this period.
Analyses like these by people who don’t know the field are useless.
A good example is Naomi Oreskes work.
Tom.
==============================================================
UPDATE 4:
Barry Woods writes via email:
The social network is of interest..
In the earlier emails, when Mann wanted to contact Monbiot, he got Monbiot’s email address from George Marshall
(Marshall is a veteran greenpeace campaigner, founder of Rising Tide, COIN –) and creator of a – Deniers Hall of Shame.. and very active at grass roots
Perhaps scientists a bit too close to activists, picking up their thinking about ‘deniers’ and fossil fuel companies ? Marshall had been battling Chevron, in the 90’s about rainforest destruction (Rainforest Foundation)
And of course Monbiot – published a Deniers photo Hall of Shame in the Guardian (including Booker) and ‘fights’ Booker on climate change
———————–
cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.xxxx>, k.briffa@xxxxxxx
date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:29:39 -0400
from: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxx>
subject: Re: More of the same from Booker
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxx>
Hi Phil,
Might want to see if George Monbiot wants to *review* the book.
That would be both amusing and satisfying,
mike
On Oct 26, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Gavin, Mike,
[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
Apparently he has a book out
[2]http://www.amazon.com/Real-Global-Warming-Disaster-Scientific/dp/1441110526
———————–
Remember the earlier email –
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1377
– that when Mann wanted to get hold of Monbiot, about Durkin and Great Global Warming Scandal..
Mann got Monbiots email address from none other than George Marshall (Rising Tide – COIN) Some scientists perhaps been influenced a bit too much by activist rhetoric,.. and picked up the rhetoric and language of activists/environmentalistsie
I.e. when did Mann start using the phrase ‘climate denier’?
George Marshall and Mark Lynas writing about it in 2003, – New Statesman – including a whose who of climate change deniers – (lindzen one of them)
Marshall had a Deniers Hall of Shame in 2001-2002 (Rising Tide) – Lindzen included
And if you look at Wayback machine – Lynas and Marshall were very early entries to Realclimate’s blog roll.
Barry
===============================================================
UPDATE 5:
From Junkscience.com
In response to a polite media inquiry from Wall Street journal editorial writer Anne Jolis, Mann rages, in part, “Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense” — and then cc’s his response to Media Matters, Joe Romm and other allies in the warmest-media industrial complex.
The e-mail exchange is below.
###
from: Michael Mann
subject: Re: From the Wall Street Journal:
to: Anne Jolis , Joe Romm , Media Matters Erikka Knuti , DarkSydOTheMoon@aol.com,
Dan Vergano , Bud Ward , george@monbiot.info, AJ Walzer , “Paul D. Thacker”, Chris Mooney
Ms. Jolis,
I’ve taken the liberty of copying this exchange to a few others who might be
interested in it, within the broader context of issues related to the history of biased
reporting on climate change at the Wall Street Journal Europe,
Yours,
Mike Mann
On Oct 23, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Michael Mann wrote:
Ms. Jolis,
I am traveling through this weekend and have only brief email access, so can
only respond w/ a very short email to your inquiry. I’m sad to report that the tone of your questions suggests a highly distorted, contrarian-driven view of the entirety of our science. The premise of essentially everyone of your questions is wrong, and is contradicted by assessments such as the IPCC report, reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, etc. The National Academy of Science report (more info below) reported in 2006 that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence…”. The conclusions in the most recent 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment report have been significantly strengthened relative to what was originally concluded in our work from the 1990s or in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report, something that of course should have been expected given the numerous additional studies that have since been
done that all point in the same direction. The conclusion that large-scale
recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the
past 1000 years in the TAR, to the past 1300 years in the current report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from likely in the Third Assessment Report to very likely in the current report for the past half millennium.
Since then, the conclusions have been further strengthened by other work,
including work by us. Please see e.g. the reporting by the BBC:
[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8236797.stm
[2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7592575.stm
You don’t seem to be aware of the fact that our original “Hockey Stick”
reconstruction didn’t even use the “Yamal” data. It seems you have uncritically accepted
nearly every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the
science of climate change itself. Furthermore, I doubt that the various authors you cite
as critics, such as Pollack and Smerdon, would in any way agree w/ your assessment of
this work.
Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense, and would work
to further besmirch the reputation of the Wall Street Journal, which is strongly been
called into question in the past with regard to the treatment of climate change.
I’ve copied my response to a number of others who might wish to comment
further, as I will be unavailable to speak with you until next week.
I’ve pasted below various summaries by mainstream news venues which reported
a couple years ago that the National Academy of Sciences, in the words of Nature “Affirmed The Hockey Stick” below this message.
In addition, here are a few links you might want to read to better
familiarize yourself with what the science actually states with regard to the issues raised in
your inquiry below:
[3]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
[4]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourthassessment-
summary
-for-policy-makers/
[5]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academiessynthesis-
repor
t/
[6]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-
27/
[7]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/new-analysisreproduces-
graph-of-l
ate-20th-century-temperature-rise/
[8]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-tothe-
latest-hockey
-stick-controversy/
[9]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-anold-
millennium/
Finally, let me suggest, under the assumption that your intent is indeed to
report the reality of our current scientific understanding, rather than contrarian
politically-motivated spin, that any legitimate journalistic inquiry into
the current state of the science, and the extent to which uncertainties and controversy
have been overstated and misrepresented in the public discourse, would probably choose
to focus on the issues raised here:
[10]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-abrief-
review/
Yours,
Mike Mann
___________________NEWS CLIPS ON ACADEMY REPORT_____________________
from BBC (6/23/06 “Backing for ‘Hockey Stick’ graph”)
The Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last
400 or possibly 1,000 years, a report requested by the US Congress concludes. It backs some of the key findings of the original study that gave rise to the iconic “hockey stick”
graph.) from New York Times (Andy Revkin, 6/22/06 “Science Panel Packs Study on
Warming Climate”):
At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several
members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had
intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.
“I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation,” said one member, Peter
Bloomfield, a statistics professor at [11]North Carolina State University. He added that
his impression was the study was “an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.
Boston Globe (Beth Daley, 6/22/06 “Report backs global warming claims”):
Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the warmest in
a (millennium), said John Wallace, one of the 12 members on the panel and
professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington.
Los Angeles Times (Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan, “U.S. Panel Backs
Data on Global Warming”):
After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation’s preeminent
scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree
over the last century, a development that “is unprecedented for the last 400 years and
potentially the last several millennia.”
and
The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years
correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times. It concluded that, “with a high level of confidence,” global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.
Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level,
committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University
said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.
The committee supported Mann’s other conclusions, but said they were not as
definitive. For example, the report said the panel was “less confident” that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from
before 1600. Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that
finding the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial
report.
Associated Press (syndicate with 100s of newspapers accross the U.S. (John
Heilprin, 6/22/06 “The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, perhaps
even longer”):
The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes
research from the late 1990s was “likely” to be true, said John “Mike” Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the ’90s research “are very close to being right” and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
and
Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the
20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a “Little Ice Age” from about 1500 to 1850.
Washington Post (Juliet Eilperin, 6/23/06 “Study Confirms Past Few Decades
Warmest on Record”):
Panel member Kurt M. Cuffey, a geography professor at the University of
California at Berkeley, said at a news briefing that the report “essentially validated” the
conclusions Mann reported in 1998 and 1999 using temperature records. The panel also
estimated there is a roughly 67 percent chance that Mann is right in saying the past 25 years were the warmest in a 1,000 years.
Nature (Geoff Brumfield, 6/28/06 “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph”)
“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North,
the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less
certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics
claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600.
Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a
two-to-one chance of being right.
and
says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in
Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. “This study was the first of its kind, and
they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed,” he says,
adding that he “would not be embarrassed” to have been involved in the work.
New Scientist (Roxanne Khamsi, 6/23/06, “US report backs study on global
warming”):
It was really the first analysis of its type, panel member Kurt Cuffey of the
University of California, Berkeley, US, said at a news conference on Thursday.
He added that it was the first time anyone has done such a large-scale and
continual analysis of temperature over time. So its not surprising that they could have
probably done some detailed aspects of it better.
But it was a remarkable contribution and gave birth to a debate thats
ongoing, thats teaching us a lot about how climate has changed.
Science (Richard Kerr, June 30, 2006, “Yes, Its been Getting Warmer in Here
Since the CO2 Begain to Rise”): In addition, none of the three committee members at the press briefing– North, Bloomfield, and paleoclimatologist Kurt Cuffey of the University of California, Berkeley- -had found any hint of scientific impropriety. “I certainly did not see anything inappropriate,” said North. “Maybe things could have been done better, but after all, it was the first analysis of its kind.”
–
On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Jolis, Anne wrote:
Dear Dr. Mann,
My name is Anne Jolis, and I’m with the Wall Street Journal Europe, based in
London. I’m working on a piece about climate change, and specifically the growing
questions that people outside the field have about the methods and processes used by climatologists and other climate-change scientists – and, necessarily, about the conclusions that result. The idea came from the recent controversy that has arisen once again over Steve McIntyre, the publication of the full Yamal data used in Keith Briffa’s work. This of course raises questions among climate scientistis, and observers, about whether the socalled “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures , as produced by Dr. Briffa and originally by yourself, was drawn from narrow data which, and then when broadened to include a wider range of available dendroclimatological data, seems to show no important spike in global temperatures in the last 100 year .
I realize this is not exactly the silverbullet to anthropogenic global warming that some would like to read into it, but it seems to me that it does underscore some of the issues in climate science. Specifically, the publication of the data, and the earlier controversy over your work, seems to illustrate that best practices and reliable methods of data collection remain far from established, and that much of what is presented as scientific fact is really more of a value judgment based on select data. Would you agree?
I’d love to get some insight from you for my article. I’ll be filing this
weekend, but I can call you any time it’s convenient for you on Friday – just let me know
the best time and number. Please note that if we do speak on the phone, I will email you
with any quotes or paraphrases that I would like to attribute to you, before publication, so
as to secure your approval and confirm the accuracy of what I’m attributing to you.
Additionally, if you’d like to correspond via email, that’s fine too. I’ve listed below some
of the questions and assumptions I’m working on – if, in lieu of a phone call, you’d
like to answer and/or respond to these, as well as share any other thoughts you have
on these issues, I’d be most grateful. Feel welcome to reply at length!
I thank you in advance for your time and attention, and look forward to any of your comments.
All the best,
Anne Jolis
Mobile: +44 xxxxxx
– Given that methods in climate science are still being refined, do you
agree with policy makers’ and advocates’ use of data such as your own? Do you feel it is
accurately represented to laymans, and that the inherent uncertainties present in the
data are appropriately underscored? As a citizen, do you feel there is enough
certainty in the conclusions of, for instance, the latest IPCC report, to introduce new
economic regulations? Why or why not?
-What methods do you feel are the most accurate for predicting future climate
change, for evaluatinag the causes of climate change and for predicting whether or what
man can do to try to control or mitigate climate change in the future in the future? Why
do you feel these methods are the most accurate? Do you feel they’re given enough weight
in the current debate?
-What is your opinion of the value of Steve McIntyre’s work? Clearly he is
not a professional scientist, but do you feel there is nonetheless a place for his
“auditing” in the climate science community? Why or why not?
-Do you think McIntyre’s work and findings are likely to change the way
leading climate scientists operate? Do you think his recent campaign to get Dr. Keith Briffa
to publish the Yamal data he used is likely to make climate scientists more forthcoming
with their data? Do you think his work will make scientists, policymakers and advocates
any more exacting about the uncertainties in their procedures, methods and conclusions
when they present scientific data?
-How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review
processes of publications in the field of climate science, as something of a “gatekeeper,”
you have rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work.
Is this fair?
Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work
that is worthy
of publication?
-Do you stand by your original “hockey stick” graf, even after the
publication of borehole
data from Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon that seems to contradict your
conclusions? Or
work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the
predictive
capabilities of the method you used in your original “hockey stick” would not
be able to
predict current temperatures?
–
Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) xxxxx
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxxx
The Pennsylvania State University email: [12]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [13]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[14]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
–
Update6:
Wigley accuses IPCC and lead authors of ‘dishonest presentations of model results’; Accuses Mann of deception; Mann admits
Mann: “Its (sic) hard to imagine what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive.”
The e-mails are below.
###
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3
> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices
> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud
> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling
> community. I’m not saying that these things necessarily cancel out
> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing
> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across
> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if
> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine
> what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive (your point re MAGICC
> notwithstanding),
>
> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after
> all),
>
> mike
>
> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
> > climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.
> >
> > Tom.
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Michael Mann wrote:
> > > thanks Tom,
> > > I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put
> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he
> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:
> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktonsdeliberate-
manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home
Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be
nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,
> > > mike
> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the
> > > > recent
> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to
> > > > look at
> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic
> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second
> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the
> > > > observed data.
> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The
> > > > second
> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
> > > > These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
> > > > Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack
> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I
> > > > do not
> > > > agree with this.
> > > > Tom.
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 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.
> > > > > This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
> > > > > was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
> > > > > freezing weather).
> > > > > Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
> > > > > planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in
> > > > > Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
> > > > > doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
> > > > >
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
> > > > > The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at
> > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
> > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
> > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
> > > > > Our observing system is inadequate.
> > > > > That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People
> > > > > like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly
> > > > > correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
> > > > > change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The
> > > > > PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO
> > > > > index became positive in September for first time since Sept
> > > > > 2007.
=====================================================
UPDATE7:
In October 1996, Keith Briffa frets that the calibration for tree-ring analysis may be off due to manmade changes in the environment.
“I spoke to you about the problem of anthropogenic influences ( i.e. increased CO2, nitrate fallout , increased UV radiation) possibly having an influence on recent tree growth and so complicating our efforts to use these recent data to define how we interpret past tree growth. Is it possible to put in some reference to me worrying about this?”
The full e-mail is below.
###
date: Tue Oct 15 17:01:05 1996
from: Keith Briffa
subject: New Scientist article
to: Fred Pearce
Dear Fred
I have done a redraft of the article. I know you said not to
rewrite it (preferably) but rather to correct, make notes suggestins etc.
I thought about this for some time and realized that it woulld be far more
difficult to indicate the precise places,the precise problems and the
suggested corrections at all of the places I considered were subtle
misinterpretations of what I said, or meant, or feel. It therefore seemed
easier FOR BOTH OF US if I went through one attempt at what amounts to a
simple rewording. This lets me change the inference , correct minor errors
and fill in all your questions without having to explain the myriad details
of where and why.
Do not , please, grimace and get pissed off at my apparent cheek!
Hopefully, you can see when you go through this draft that most of it is
entirely yours and my changes are meant to be efficient and constructive.
I hope you will be able to accept this version pretty much as it stands now.
Incidentally, a pedantic point, but where you refer to a tree with rings
about 30 microns wide being equivelent to a tree increasing its GIRTH by one
centimetre in 100 years, should this not be 2 cms? Assuming the tree has a
starting diameter of about 15 cm , after 100 years its diameter will be 15.6 cm
(the rings occur on both sides of the tree) so that the cicumference change over
this period will be 1.9 cm.
There remain a couple of points for your consideration. Is it possible,
somehow, to get the ADVANCE-10K name in and explained( i.e. the project
title)? This is important to us as publicity in the context of our funding.
Also, I spoke to you about the problem of anthropogenic influences ( i.e.
increased CO2, nitrate fallout , increased UV radiation) possibly having
an influence on recent tree growth and so complicating our efforts to use
these recent data to define how we interpret past tree growth. Is it possible
to put in some reference to me worrying about this?
Finally, can you suggest to the editor that we put a footnote in to
flag our home page which details all the objectives and participants ?
(perhaps with the reference to the ADVANCE-10K acronym,title and grant
number)
I look forward to hearing from you and can send the text as ASCII,
WORD or WORDPERFECT files – for now should I fax it and if so to where?
cheers
Keith
Still waiting for some actual damning info or at least something that will be a game changer … will this ever happen?
At 7:16 AM on 15 March, we’ve got Joe jumping to wholly unfounded conclusions about yours truly, writing:
…and in that as in so much else, Joe is precisely wrong.
It appears reliable to presume that Joe is a left-“Liberal” collectivist who is vapor-locked into a clichéd and erroneous impression that all those of us who are not socialists have got to be authoritarians of another kind, apparently the vengeful “law-and-order” boogie man much beloved of “Liberal” song and legend.
I don’t know if Joe is an American, but I am. That means I’m a citizen of a republic, the government of which maintains whatever shreds of legitimacy persist after decades of worsening criminality in public office only by way of adherence to the prescriptions and prohibitions of the U.S. Constitution, a mechanism known as “the rule of law.”
The sole source of sovereign authority in such a republic is the individual human being. All government thugs in these United States (including those on the payrolls of municipalities, counties, and states) derive their legitimate authority from the specifically limited delegation of the exercise of the citizen’s rights.
There is no such concrete entity as “society” in this context. When we speak of government other than as an abstract concept describing the process of governing, we speak of the officers of that institution. When we speak of society (if we’re reasoning with lucidity and sanity and honesty), we’re similarly characterizing a process of interaction among individuals.
So “society” can’t be said to have volition, intentions, needs, voice, or any other characteristic of a living entity. For the process of society to go on, there are certainly conditions that must be met, for society is the process of peaceable interaction among individual human beings – and for these naked killer apes of species H. sapiens to play nice and work well with each other, everybody needs to have the idea of individual human rights firmly in mind.
Otherwise we’re in what the Enlightenment philosophers called “the state of nature,” and not in society at all.
Whether Joe is an American or not, it’s safe to assume that he’s not really familiar with even the first few paragraphs of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (1776). Let’s help him out:
[Emphases in the original.]
Back to the death penalty and the concept of government under the rule of law. If the citizen hasn’t got a right to do something, the “public servants” acting in his name haven’t got a lawful right to do that something either. Pretty straightforward.
Okay. Does the private citizen have a right to walk up to a known criminal malefactor – securely restrained and not posing an imminent threat to anyone, helpless in his incarceration – and blow him away?
Rhetorical question. Of course he doesn’t. The right to exert deadly force in retaliation against violence exists only in media res, as a means of preventing the aggressor from working imminent harm.
If in the process of abating violent aggression, it becomes necessary to injure or kill such an aggressor, we speak of the protection of the victim’s right to life, not the infringement of the aggressor’s equal right to his own life. But execution? To quote Doug Casey a few years ago:
So Joe has set up a straw man, and a pretty pitiful one at that. But back to his primary error, in which (absent any reasoned argument) he dismisses my discussion of human rights with contemptible yammer:
…meaning, of course, that it would be precisely on topic, that I’m entirely correct, and Joe can’t contend against my statements. He’s got to evade if he wishes to sustain the illusion of his left-collectivist violation of individual human rights.
Any reasoning honest disputant acknowledges that in all aspects of human affairs, “real world” decisions are very much “black & white.” Always. That’s the way reality works. The determination may not be a comfortable one – certainly not always the one you would like to have gotten (“Yeah, we have to amputate”), but the resolution is always “black & white.”
Shades of grey simply mean that you haven’t gotten the resolution down enough yet. Joe knows this; hell, he has to know it, else he wouldn’t be allowed out in public without a leash. He’s simply aware of the fact that such honesty is incompatible with left-collectivist political predation, and he wants to impose such aggression upon his innocent and harmless fellow human beings.
That’s the nature of the statist political left. Who would be so naïve as to assume otherwise?
To continue with Joe:
Hard to speak of someone “naturally” being adherent to such a psychotically perverse and sociopathic political mindset, but insofar as skepticism regarding the preposterous bogosity of the great Man-Made Global Warming fraud goes, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, can’t it?
Great truths are spoken in jest.
http://youtu.be/RrodOi72Huo
Not making objections that actually count toward anything is a universal problem in these climate wars. When Pollack and Shen were publishing paper after paper regarding borehole reconstruction of climate, I thought the work was very poor and not meaningful toward settling anything in the AGW debate. There were influential members of the geophysical community who told me they also thought the effort was misguided. Yet, these influential folks never said so in any meaningful forum that would have as much as slowed publication or funding, or shown any of the work in a bad light in public. I think it is a form of cowardice to let lousy work slide by in public.
At 9:37 AM on 15 March, Clive comments flippantly:
Lorazepam is available in the much less expensive generic formulation, and the dispensing patterns should be tracked in that category rather than in the proprietary (“brand name”) form.
Frankly, if I had responsibility for prescribing among the inferred population in Centre County, Pennsylvania, I’d be writing for clorazepate (Tranxene), which tends to have a more sustained duration of action than lorazepam and a reliably high LD50, making it perhaps a better choice for employment in managing patients at risk of attempted suicide by overdose.
SanityP says:
March 15, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Still waiting for some actual damning info or at least something that will be a game changer … will this ever happen?
_______________
Exceedingly few people have access to the files at this point.
We could ask you to catch up, but that wouldn’t mesh well with your troll intent, would it?
CG1 and CG2 were spun like tornadoes by those most likely to lose their reputations or have their funding cut. As a consequence, they were exonerated and their misdeeds whitewashed. It won’t be any different this time around, so let those who have been entrusted with the password do their work; truth will out and the haughty will fall–Their demise is inevitable.
FOIA asked for the password not to be released.
To do so would be an act of betrayal and an insult to him/her.
C’mon guys, we need some action. Release some of the good stuff or the story will lose momentum.
p.s. The reaction of the team on hearing that the password’s been released:
SanityP
I think the game already changed in about 2009. I see this as probably more about understanding social relationships and standings which would be very interesting for those seeking to understand how certain studies became sacred cows and who the bullies are.
Instapundit, massive web traffic generator, today linked to this post.
“CLIMATEGATE 3.0: More Michael Mann Emails Hit The Internet.”
SanityP says: “….will this ever happen?”
There’s not much science in the emails, a bit like the alarmist arguments – it is all about spin.
There is lots evidence of a culture to suppress dissent or any evidence not in agreement with their own views. In fact it is like a collossal – very expensive – media PR (or propaganda) campaign. It is gang culture mentality, you are either a member of the gang or club or you are the enemy. The gang was unable to prove ‘their’ science so they recruited scientific organisations and argued from authority and wound up the media and green lobby into a frenzy of support. Any scientist arguing against was either silenced, derided, or reported as being in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.
Who are the public going to believe or support, the tree hugger “saving the planet,” supported by a ‘consensus’ of ‘authoritative’ scientists or the “dirty fossil fuel industry destroying the planet”.
The result of this fraud? Possible power cuts (the year zero scenario) and the poor and vulnerable placed further into fuel poverty, paying to subsidise renewable energy or for a carbon tax.
“Hide the Decline” it’s not about the science, it never was.
New post on Climate Audit! Marcott et al. (2013) is going down…..
Also, for (different issues) past discussion of dendro “divergence” issues, I found the CG2 email posted here to be fascinating:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/07/yamal-and-the-divergence-problem/#comment-404909
Does FOIA own the material in question? Is it somehow his, so that he may choose when and how it is used? Let’s not kid ourselves here, however the information got into his hands it was through dishonest methods at the very least with someone betraying the trust that was placed in them and at worst, outright theft which could be subject to criminal prosecution. Don’t get me wrong, I am glad it was done and I approve of the actions to do it, even if they were illegal. The Climate Community was attempting to subvert the law and public policy and exposure was the right thing to do, legal or not.
But FOIA doesn’t own this material. It is not his. He had no right to possess it in the first place and certainly has no right now to claim ownership of it. The purpose of its release was to expose professional misconduct and presumably to disgrace the individuals involved. I imagine that FOIA has made his request to protect the reputations of people he considers friends, it’s not too much to assume that he is connected to the Climate Community in a professional way. But keep in mind, these people kept their mouths shut to protect the ring leaders I don’t recall a wave of scientists exposing this corruption prior to CG1 or standing up to support the claims of misconduct afterwards. However honorable or decent he believes some of these scientists are, however valuable their work, they still formed part of a conspiracy of silence when they knew the facts were not in their favor.
This information does not belong to FOIA, it belongs to the public. The people who he is protecting have no right to protection. They were ALL part of the conspiracy. He betrayed a confidence to release something because he thought it was the moral thing to do, and he was right. It is also the moral thing to do to betray his trust, because releasing this information is still the right thing to do.
It’s on the key above the Return key (on a US keyboard).
Yes, it’s obvious that he’s “made smoke.”
Use of the “Blockquote” and “/
I find myself all over the map on this one,retribution says release the password.
Decency and ethics say, honour FOIA’s request and spare the innocent.
On the Cult of Anthropogenic Genocidal Alarmists, I consider the “cause” to be a zombie,
the corpse is being used as the shield it always was.Climate Gate 1 slew it, yet it marches on.
What if we put together a list of government employees, who were seconded to the IPCC by out governments and FOIA’ed their official correspondence for the relevant time spans?
As I am quite sure the Liberal appointees over at Environment Canada, were up to their necks in this mess.
What will break the media embargo on the collapse of the big lie,the silence on 15+ years of no measurable warming, would be a government announcing an investigation into the IPCC.
Unless it was the British, that would just be funny pages stuff after their last one.
Even though govt inquiries are hopelessly restricted by their terms of reference, if Canada announced such an intent, it could be credible enough to panic the UN and the team members.
As with all frauds, first to turn “rat”, wins.
Joe Prins says:
March 14, 2013 at 3:28 pm
, is already combing through the emails send by Mr. FOIA to the “key holders”
+++++++++
mail servers routinely hold local copies of emails for a period of time. if FOIA sent the password in plain text, which it appears was done, then it is quite likely the password is sitting on a number of mail servers in plain text at this time, available to a system admin or persuasive outsider.
This is a firestorm. I can’t even keep ahead of the comments to comment. The world is awash with info.
Mr Black says:
March 15, 2013 at 3:20 pm
Does FOIA own the material in question?
=========
FOIA sent the material unsolicited. The receiver is under no obligation to follow any unsolicied instructions they might receive. However, there are wider issues due to the provenance of the material, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press issues.
This is far from a cut and dried issue. That said, it would be truly remarkeable if the password did not find itself evnetually in the public domain. That event in itself would tend to show that control of information is not as difficult as many assume, and that conspiracies may be much more common than we assume.
The belief that most conspiracy theories have no basis in fact relies largely on the unproven assumption that over time the truth will come out. However, if we do not see the password eventually released this would suggest it is much easier than most believe to keep tight control over information that is reasonable well known within a small group.
Which would suggest that conspiracies are in fact more common than generally believed.
Between endlessly emailing back and forth trying to shut down opposition to their inadequate theories, did these ninnies ever do any real work? Like, WHEN?
I think the use of more of the quote renders this excerpt innocuous:
“… but if showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive” – M.Mann
He’s just saying that if the full spread is considered deceptive, then a part of the spread would be considered deceptive too. I don’t think that deserves harping.
Tucci78 says:
March 15, 2013 at 1:15 pm
[…]
I won’t get drawn into a long debate on it because that would be heading way off topic.
…meaning, of course, that it would be precisely on topic, that I’m entirely correct, and Joe can’t contend against my statements.
——————————————————————————————————————
No, meaning that philosophical debate on this matter, while I’d enjoy nohing more than wiping the floor with you, is entirely OFF topic in a thread about the release of the password for the remaining UEA emails. The fact you think it might be on topic in this thread speaks volumes about your true intellect.
And, on that basis ONLY, in the words of FOIA….
over and out 😉
At 5:53 PM on 15 March, we have Joe perpetrating the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (“attacking the man” rather than addressing the points in dispute) to evade the provision of substantive response, exacerbating his earlier crap:
…by weaseling in response to my calling him on this gormless run-around:
So let us translate on behalf of this socialist enemy of individual human rights and government under the rule of law:
Which is my best effort at articulating in this venue the sound a capon makes just before the axe strikes the chopping block beneath his neck.
At 5:24 PM on 15 March, heysuess had asked:
Well, they certainly had to sweat bullets over their applications for billions and billions of bucks’ worth of government “research” grant funding, didn’t they?
Telling the truth is straightforward and fairly easy. Objective reality provides an error-checking mechanism. Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi and outright lying, on the other hand, oblige the fraudsters to cobble up their con game with the simulation of a “reality” that doesn’t actually exist.
One of the great problems with the “draw the curve, then plot your points” approach of these sniveling bastiches is that it’s been really hard to keep consistency in the ginormous tower of deceit they were conniving to foist upon the population of the whole frickin’ world, co-ordinate however criminally and “pal review” each others’ garbage however obsessively they might.
Most of the grant funding applications I’ve completed over the years have pertained to seeking financial support in the private sector for various activities, but I was cautioned that when you signed off on any such an application as one of the parties responsible for its contents, you were “drop dead” liable for any deliberate misstatement of fact in the contents of that application.
Not only in a civil sense but under criminal law (as in “theft of value by fraud”).
Can it be any different when one is seeking funding under false pretenses from the public purse?
“Further to my comment above that I think I know who FOIA is, the use of that moniker always puzzled me. Why use the acronym of a piece of UK/US legislation?” [Philip Bradley, March 15, 2013 2:46am ]
Does it stand for Fcuked Off In Anglia?
“Further to my comment above that I think I know who FOIA is, the use of that moniker always puzzled me. Why use the acronym of a piece of UK/US legislation?” [Philip Bradley, March 15, 2013 2:46am ]
Does it stand for F##ked Off In Anglia?