ClimateGate continues – the Mann Hockeystick University of Arizona emails are now public

After years of trying to suppress their release, and finally being ordered to be released by a judge, they are now public, and we have them here. This will remain as a “top post” for a day, new stories will be below this one.

There’s quite a treasure trove, but also some duplications from previous releases.

First a look at the release letter from University of Arizona:

The files released cover emails from Michael Mann to Malcolm Hughes, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Amman, Ray Bradley, and Jonathan Overpeck. Plus there were additional requests for anything out of UEA (Phil Jones at CRU).

The FOIA request goes all the way back to December of 2011, it’s taken this long to get released. Mann fought the release all the way.

Here is a sample, where Keith Briffa of CRU says that Mann’s data (and others) do in fact show a Medieval Warm Period.

There’s further arguments from Keith Briffa about Mann’s data, along with Mann claiming that the “screening” process to decide whether or not to include certain proxy data is actually a good thing. There was some blowback a few years ago when it was discovered that Mann’s pre-screening really skewed the results in his favor….yet in these email exchanges, he thinks the process is “objective”:

Here’s Mann responding to the publication of the McIntyre and McKittrick paper in E&E:

There’s quite a bit to wade through, and some emails are duplicated from the original Climategate release.

I invite readers to read and review these documents, and to point out any items of interest in comments.

Here are the documents, available for download:

 Chris Horner, Government Accountability Oversight – Response Close 2-27-19 (00115527xC3E11)

  00249611

  00249725

  E E matter. Exemplar Records Release Privilege Log (00115528xC3E11)

  ATI-U-of-A-Hughes-Overpeck-FOI-Request

  E E – Overpeck. Log of Responsive Nonresponsive Records (00114879xC3E11)

  E E. Overpeck email records released to E E 2-5-19 per court order (00114885xC3E11)

  Malcolm Hughes – Log of Redactions Peer Review Withholding (00115522xC3E11)

Advertisements

362 thoughts on “ClimateGate continues – the Mann Hockeystick University of Arizona emails are now public

  1. “but also some duplications from previous releases.”

    Which should (but won’t) quiet the many claims that the earlier releases were made up and or edited.

    • Not made up or edited…just taken way out of context. I have seen way worse cherry picking from articles on this website

      • This website has a mix of professional scientists engineers, knowledgable non professionals, righty non professional contrarians and lefty non professional social scientists and trolls (nearly all consensus climate scientists seem to fear to comment here on the number one science blog in the world, although not one fails to come and read the site’s articles).

        You’ve made my point. Climate science does not meet the standards of a science. In my opinion, its no where near the fair standard of a motley mixed science blog.

      • How do you take out of context using tricks to hide?
        Using tricks to hide is not science and the context does not matter.

  2. They sort the proxies to see if they have a signal, then they declare that the fact that the proxies have a signal is proof of their original claims.

    • And then declare that this is fine as, when other people sort the proxies to see if they have a signal, they find that the proxies have a signal too.

      • Re: “We are actually screening all proxies to see if they have a verifiable signal (temperature or precip)-against the instrumental data ”
        Sounds reasonable. But what if the “instrumental data” has been adjusted to fit their warming hypothesis, does this become the Cherry Picking fallacy?

        CHERRY-PICKING THE DATA (Card-Stacking, Controlling the Microphone, Ignoring Counterevidence, One-sided Assessment, Quoting out of Context, Proof-Texting, Slanting, Suppressed Evidence)(Informal Fallacy > One-Sidedness > Quoting Out of Context): Selecting only data which suits your argument, or finding a pattern which fits your presumption, while ignoring contradictory data or patterns. When you know your goal or the numbers you have, it’s easy to concoct agreeable explanations for them.

        Or is it infamous Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy? Only select data that fits your claim?

        The Texas sharpshooter is a fabled marksman who fires his gun randomly at the side of a barn, then paints a bullseye around the spot where the most bullet holes cluster. The story of this Lone Star state shooter has given its name to a fallacy apparently first described in the field of epidemiology, which studies how disease spreads in a population.*…
        Exposition:
        This fallacy occurs when someone jumps to the conclusion that a cluster in some data must be the result of a cause, usually one that it is clustered around. There are two reasons why this is fallacious:
        The cluster may well be the result of chance, in which case it was not caused by anything.
        Even if the cluster is not the result of chance, there are other possible reasons for the clustering, other than the cause chosen. For instance, if a disease is contagious, it may be clustered around a carrier.
        At best, the occurrence of a cluster in the data is the basis not for a causal conclusion, but for the formation of a causal hypothesis which needs to be tested. Patterns in data can be useful for forming hypotheses, but they are not themselves sufficient evidence of a causal connection. In short, correlation is not causation.

        What then of Mike’s Nature Trick – of deleting data that did not fit?
        See: McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2006) Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences on Uncertainties in Paleoclimate Reconstruction
        Technical: **McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005) The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications Energy and Environment 16(1) pp. 69-100.

        • To add the notion that also all relevant “instrumental data” could have been been adjusted massively to fit preconceived notions, would leave one without anything certain at all. Which is the place only die-hard conspiracy theorists want to enter as it facilitates more endless speculation.

          Also it would extent the limited question on the validity of the hockey stick to include hundreds more scientists who are dishonest to the bone and/of dangerously incapable of doing their job. Which is a less likely scenario and would need way more explaining.

          Either way, nothing is advanced with such theory. Any selection of proxies to include only those which can *affirm* their signal in the instrumental record is the logical thing to do. Proxies which cannot be checked against the instrumental record are simply too uncertain.

          • Dowser, so if a scientist is ‘certain’ of an alternative hypothesis, it must be okay to use the proxies the consensus guy discarded to prove his hypothesis. This seems very collegial!

          • fallacy, the instrumental record is far too short for such a use for proxies

            and I see you didnt mention strip bark pine cone that Pages and Mann love, even though PNAS said dont use them as they are not reliable

            hmmmm

            I smell disingenuous shysters a mile off

      • They sort through a population of similarly sourced proxies and use the ones that work and discard the ones that don’t, which proves the proxies work. Got it. A proxy by type either works or it doesn’t in old school science.

      • You get a population of similar proxy types that are basically all random noise, then pick the ones with the signal you like.

        • Climate science calls proxy sorting “tree ring calibration.”

          It is similar to judging if a drug cures a disease by only counting how many people recover while ignoring how many die.

          • Or giving healthy patients a poison and then counting the number who survive as the ones saved from an imaginary deadly disease they all had. Then becoming billionaires fighting the growing epidemic by selling their poison as a breakthrough drug.

          • If the hockey stick were turned around, it would fit nicely up Mann’s rear end and he could ride it to the ice free north pole.

          • They simply would select the patients where they saw a relationship between the two variables. In this case, since they know temperature went up, they only select trees (the good ones) where the trees were sensitive to temperature and show the temps going up.

            With a drug I guess they would select the patients where the disease is sensitive to the drug and only use those data. 🙂

          • EDITOR: I suggest deleting Bit T’s reply. That kind of profanity doesn’t help this website.

    • But how do they what signal they are looking for? The fact that the “signal” the pick matches the instrument data doesn’t mean that it does! It could just be totally random, as the fact that lots of proxies do not match shows.

      Total confirmation bias – but they don’t even know what they are confirming! It’s no wonder they had to “hide the decline”. Just amateur stuff, at every level.

      • Perhaps Mike Maxwell should get out of mommas basement in order to understand a joke when he sees one.

  3. I wonder if they are still trying to claim that being asked to do their legal duty is evidence of persecution?

  4. When a group of acolytes, using the same methods and same data get the same results, some people are always surprised.

    • One word sums up the total behaviour of “The Team” –
      perfidy
      noun.
      deliberate breach of faith or trust; faithlessness; treachery:
      an act or instance of faithlessness or treachery.

    • It’s also important that they know who reviews their papers and that the reviewers are part of “the team”, and critically important to know who reviews every single paper in the field apparently. And obviously, (from Mann’s point of view) if any paper disputes anything he writes, the paper must not have been reviewed by qualified people or he would know.

  5. Speaking of “stunts,” it sure looks like Mann was capable of pulling a few stunts of his own over the course of time, including but not limited to libeling those who disagreed with his dicey contentions.

    • My theory is that Mann doesn’t want to go to trial and be forced to produce discovery, nor does he want to be forced to testify under oath.

      Having said the above, these emails are another nail in the coffin.

      • He can cancel his own suit any time he wants. However Steyn counter sued. Mann can’t just dismiss that one. He’s going to be forced to produce discovery, and while he can’t be forced to testify, it will be just more evidence if he refuses that privilege.

        • PS: If he dismisses his own suit, that action can be used by Steyn as evidence of the weakness of Mann’s suit.

        • … while he can’t be forced to testify, it will be just more evidence if he refuses that privilege.

          He can always take the fifth. What happens then depends on the jurisdiction. link For instance, Maryland and California have different rules. See point 2 in the link. In any event, if he refuses to testify, then he can’t testify at all, not even in his own defense.

          I think that, if it goes to trial, Mann’s goose is cooked. However, that opinion plus a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee. 😉

        • You got that wrong…Mann has to testify…he’s the plaintiff in a civil trial. He has to tell the court his side of the story. It’s up to him to prove his case

          • If he chooses not to testify in his case, he might be called as an adverse witness in Mr. Steyn’s defense or in Mr. Steyn’s case. His right to “take the Fifth” protects against self incrimination. He has not, to my knowledge, been charged with a crime and would, therefore, need to show that his testimony might subject him to criminal prosecution. What crimes does he believe he may be charged with if he answers each question put to him? No “blanket” claim of immunity should be granted him and, therefore, he should be required to defend his “Fifth Amendment Right” every time he asserts it. Doing so is never good in front of a jury.

          • Yet it works great to plead the fifth in front of congress, and say I do not remember 50 times to the FBI. ( If you are a democrat)

          • Actually, this procedural memory loss is also affecting us here in Canada.

            In case you missed it, Prime Minister Zoolander finally got caught pretending to know what he is doing, and is embroiled in a major bribery scandal.

            His “fixer”, i.e., the actual brains of the outfit, testified this week.

            Of course…he can’t remember much.

            Perhaps, instead of looking into other factors such as aluminum, etc., Alzheimer researchers should look into how obvious liars in the public eye suddenly suffer from memory loss.

      • Commie, this is the genius of Steyn. Mann is locked into the suit because Steyn countersued for 20million plus. Mann can’t back out or dismiss it because that would be support for the countersuit. Steyn has already submitted his discovery docs. This suit is going to do more to discourage frivolous suits for the purpose of punishing critics than the seemingly toothless anti-SLAPP legislation.

  6. Just another WIKI article slanted toward “the team” goals
    WIKI has become one of the least reliable sources

    • I just want it to warm up. Anyone that says it is warmer now than the late 80 😉

      Who knows what it was like in the 30s but we sure have a lot of records from then

      • Agreed! This is not the warmest even in the last hundred years. Every period and temperature that doesn’t fit the AGW narrative has been adjusted until it did. staggering that governments that pretend to look after our interests have been complicit in this massive fraud.

        • That’s what governments do: lie about everything to increase their own power. I can’t think of any major issue they don’t lie about.

      • We might have a lot of records from the 30’s but in Australia they havegotten progressively colder with each revised data set by the BOM.

    • Sounds like you agree he did it wrong. He was the first hokey stick. It has been proven that random data using his methods always produces a hockey stick. So, what are the odds he did it wrong but got the right answer? A million to one? More logical explanation is follow ons assumed it was right and choose variables /assumptions that gave same results. I have seen over twenty papers here that show no CAGW. Do you accept that as final proof against CAGW? If not why do you expect others to accept wikipedia?

      • At the time he was pulling this malarky, temperatures were almost certainly changing because that’s what they do and have always done. They could only go two directions-up or down. So I guess there was a 50% chance he was going to be right. Since the general direction since the LIA had been up that was the best bet. Now that we have seen a cyclical high in the 80’s ( never mind the adjustments), the best bet is downward.

    • There’s nothing cutting edge about 20 year old work.
      They also did not use a variety of techniques, they all used variations of the already disproven methods that Mann used.

      Every thing in your chart was “checked out” a long time ago and found to be fatally flawed. I’m not surprised that you didn’t know that.

      PS: I’m not surprised to find out that you also have been paid to feign indignation that Mann should be required to follow the law.

      • Checked out be experts in statistics.

        I’m really not surprised that you have no knowledge regarding the sordid history behind the so called hockey stick graphs. Paid trolls rarely do.

        • For an English major, you sure do have problems understanding English. I’d asked for a refund on the tuition if I were you.

          • other guys (Briffa) said Mann data DOES show MWP.

            you (Mark) said Mann methods were shoddy.

            Blinders-On (or leach … don’t know which) makes illogical jump that you disagree with MWP because Mann is shoddy.

        • ‘Now mark denies the MWP’

          Gee, only two grammar errors on that single, snarky little post.

        • Steven Mosher
          March 6, 2019 at 3:16 am

          “The MWP was proven by hundreds of studies long before these charts came out. They also proved that the MWP was a major climate event, not the tiny blip shown in these disproven charts.”
          “name 10 and then explain why you accept that evidence.”

          https://us-issues.com/tag/medieval-warm-period/

          Red balloons in the graph at the link show (hundreds of) studies that found the MWP was as warm or warmer than the current warm period. Blue balloons indicate the MWP was colder than this. Green is wetter. Yellow is drier.

          Additional evidence can be found here:
          http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
          http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php

          http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/scientists.php
          http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/institutions.php

          “what evidence exactly in those 100s of studies did you accept and why.”
          “10 will do, you should be able to name them of the top of your head”

          As you know, almost nobody who doesn’t specialize in the field of paleoclimatology can answer your specific questions.

          However, anybody that is not color blind(can tell red from blue) and not authentic science blind can see 10 times as many studies showing temperatures this warm or warmer during the Medieval Warm Period as not. That profound agreement amongst the majority of studies for this period is so convincing that it defies logic to go against them.

      • Maybe you should go back to purging your twitter when proven wrong Mosh, or padding out your CV some more with what appears to be, in my opinion, gross misrepresentation?

        Your comment is indicative of what you actually bring to the CliSci debate, ie snide meaningless snipes.

        • Mark – Helsinki

          Steven doesn’t pad out his CV, his employer generously did that by anointing him the title “scientist”.

          I’m gonna get me a job as a cleaner at Berkeley then I can be called a scientist as well and y’all must listen to me.

          Easy when you know how.

        • hey I’m not the one deny charts that clearly show a MWP, mark is.

          CliSci debate?

          there is one in the published science, join us!

          • Steve, you really should learn when to stop digging.
            1) The charts do not “clearly show” the MWP.
            2) Denying the validity of these charts does not even imply that I deny the existence of the MWP. The MWP was proven by hundreds of studies long before these charts came out. They also proved that the MWP was a major climate event, not the tiny blip shown in these disproven charts.
            3) When are you going to learn how to do basic science?

          • He’s an English major. “doing science” wasn’t required. Apparently poorly spelled snark was.

          • Strawman Mosher,
            Set up your strawman argument by allegation,
            and then knock it down by pretense, because…. science!

            How childishly lame.

          • So mark

            you believe in the MWP?

            Thats interesting?
            1. what evidence do you have? specifically? any thermomters? resolution? precision?

            2. From how many locations do you have evidence? is that enough ? how do you
            know?

            3. Was the average temperature in the MWP warmer than today? does average
            temperature have a meaning?

            4. when you say warmer do you mean tmax? tavg? or temperature integrated
            at every hour?

            5. Do you evalutae evidence of warmth THEN with the same standard that
            you use to evaluate evidence of warmth today.

            but glad you said you agree there was an MWP.. now to your evidence and why you accept it. this should be fun

          • “The MWP was proven by hundreds of studies long before these charts came out. They also proved that the MWP was a major climate event, not the tiny blip shown in these disproven charts.”

            Hundreds?

            name 10 and then explain why you accept that evidence.

            go ahead, I’ll wait

            what evidence exactly in those 100s of studies did you accept and why.

            10 will do, you should be able to name them of the top of your head

          • Even by your low standards steve, that was pathetic.

            Only you and the other acolytes have questioned the existence of a MWP that was warmer than current temperatures by a degree or two.
            Hundreds of studies from all over the world have confirmed this.

            One broken study using invalid proxies and invalid statistical measures pretended to erase the MWP and LIA.

          • PS: Once again, instead of defending your earlier mistakes, you attempt to change the subject.
            How predictable.

          • Mosher – this might be one of the most deliberately dishonest threads you’ve ever attempted to get started.

          • This comment was me
            m March 6, 2019 at 7:05 am
            Must have mistyped my handle or deleted it somehow. Sorry about the inadvertent sock puppetry.

          • I feel your pain M, Happens to me too. I start type in the “J” in the name box and select my name from the resulting list. Only sometime it doesn’t fill in, leaving the Name box with just the “J”, usually I catch it and try again, but one time I didn’t and posted. Now the list shows 2 entries: one for my full name and one with just the “J”.

          • Hundreds of studies Steve? The problem is that Mann’s studies and those like it contradict the entire sciences of History and Archaeology. I’ll grant that these sciences do not produce figures for temps, but they do indeed show when when changes occur, middens alone demonstrate how the diet changed with the climate.

            But their data do not fit the narrative, hence there has only been one historian involved with the IPCC in the last 5 reports. For most reasonable people, to find out what was happening in Roman times you would ask a Historian, yet climate science never does. Why is that?

          • Markw

            Not the words “believe in the MWP”

            Even at this stage, he doesn’t understand it’s not about belief.

            The evidence for it is strong, as are the anecdotal historical records, so much so that statistical mumbo jumbo by a few ideologues with vested interest have done nothing coming even close to giving enough evidence to show otherwise

            The latest pages nonsense with Antarctica and boreholes is another fiasco.

            They deleted the to 15 meters because “weather”, yet all of the data, comes from layers that were the top 15 meters at some point, yet pages dont explain how these layers are less reliable when 15 meters or higher and get more reliable as they get buried.

          • To try discredit the MWP you have to ignore the vast quality of evidence, actual evidence, historical.. social and scientific.

            Then you have to use screening methods to exclude any proxy that has high medieval values that doesn’t correspond to modern temperature record warming and include any proxy that has flat medieval values and corresponds with the modern record
            CLUE: Pages assume any proxy series that correlates with the modern warming record, is a valid proxy, to hell with all other factors.

            Then, next you have to either use strip bark pine cone, or tun your lake sediment proxy upside down to get your blade, while refusing to accept that the lake sediment proxy is completely polluted by changes at the site, that they attempt to dismiss with arm waving and 0 supporting evidence.

            Sometimes, you have to come up with seemingly arbitrary screening methods for one of your proxies that has high medieval values, that none of your other series were subjected to (Gergis Karoly)

            The only thing worth pointing out here is this.
            Earth’s climate evolution is LINEAR, not CYCLICAL. The planet is never the same from one year to the next, and there is vast difference geologically between today and 10,000 years ago, the past cannot tell you what the temperature should be today, to .1c, which is what Mann and Pages have more or less claimed by claiming the world should be cooling and “more than 100% of warming is due to CO2 emissions”

            The data manipulation in Australia is the most brazen example of cheating I have ever witnessed with data, they don’t even care, sometimes subtracting nearly 3c from the record of the past, without any actual real justification for doing so.

            Maybe Mosh should go talk to the BOM, given they are quite obviously revising the past to fit the agenda. I am sure such blatant revision of historical data irks a scientist like Mosher.. I say that with 95% confidence like, VERY LIKELY /sarc

          • Also, Maybe Mosh can tell us why he has no issue with Zeke’s ludicrously junk science claim, claiming to know OHC to a ridiculously accurate degree in the 1950s to 1990s 😀

            Such clams are not only unscientific, but worse, they are flat earth type claims dressed in a white coat like the TV ad scientists selling you iffy remedies from the 60s and 70s

            Does Mosh have a white coat I wonder 😀

          • Darn my coffee sticky keys.. I almost have to punch some letters on my keyboard.

            dagnabit

          • Right, because that debate has not been shown very clearly to completely loaded against any kind of scepticism. really, if you are so confident that you are right, why resort to such ridiculous statements?

          • Mosher writes on the MWP

            what evidence do you have? specifically? any thermomters? resolution? precision?

            Archealogical evidence that Greenland was as warm or warmer for a long time is unequivocal. Whether it was global or not, the models cant produce it so they can be discounted as being able to reproduce Global climate on that basis.

          • History tells us much about reality of the MWP. Just as it does about the LIA. The history of Greenlandic settlement tells about both. Many thousands of historical accounts inform.

            Did you know that during the Revolutionary war in the US, that when the British took Manhattan, Washing had a warehouse full of cannons that he didn’t want to fall into enemy hands. He sent a stealthy group to roll the cannons out onto the ice where they rolled them to New Jersey. How to interpret this odd event? History can be reliable scientific evidence. I certainly trust this more than I do the highly malleable modern temperature series that continues to be wrought by the clime syndicate.

          • Indeed.

            One of my faves:

            http://www.gutenberg.org/files/34439/34439-h/34439-h.htm

            1808.
            AUGUST.
            8.—A remarkable storm occurred at Norwich. Streets were inundated and cellars flooded. “The roaring of the waters in falling from the roof to the lower leads of the Cathedral was so tremendous as literally to drown the noise of the thunder that accompanied it.”

            1809.
            JANUARY.
            28.—In consequence of a rapid thaw, the low lying parts of Norwich were flooded. “Some of the houses were six or seven feet under water,” and boats were rowed in the street at St. Martin-at-Oak. The marshes below Norwich were so inundated that the course of the river could not be traced, and the barge proceeding to Yarmouth had to return, in consequence of the men being unable to find the channel.

            1816.
            FEBRUARY.
            16.—A high tide at Yarmouth. The Denes and the west side of the haven were inundated. A similar occurrence had not been recorded since 1791. A flood also took place at Lynn.

            Etc.

            I mean, words have meaning for me. “Unprecedented” means either “never happened before in recorded history” or “hasn’t happened since”.

            Even back then, as per above (…since 1791) they knew this.

            Now, “unprecedented” means “a few years ago. Maybe, please don’t look”…

    • PPS: Since these e-mails were from 15 to 20 years ago, I would really like to know why you are so convinced that they are “cutting edge”? Is that what the talking points memo told you to say?

      • Climatology has made no progress in the last thirty years so, yes, they are still cutting edge.

        The uncertainty in the estimates of climate sensitivity has not reduced since the IPCC was formed. Despite better computers, more satellites and more measurements at sea. Climatology has failed to make any progress.

        The only other “sciences” with such an abject record of failure are Ufology and Cryptozoology. For much the same reasons. All three pseudoscience assume they know the truth and look for evidence to support that rather than looking for evidence and seek theories to explain it.

        • “The only other “sciences” with such an abject record of failure are Ufology and Cryptozoology.”

          I take great exception to this statement. Great strides have been made in Ufology in the past 30 years. Indeed, we have developed a whole classification system for all the different alien races which visit this planet. There is even a Wikipedia entry on the subject.

          The science of Cryptozoology has made similar strides. For example, “Nessie”, the loch Ness monster has been positively identified as a plesiosaur, a species of marine reptile which has survived since the age of the dinosaurs. “Champ”, a similar creature living in Lake Champlain, in the US, is an Ichthyosaur.
          Further, we have great video of “The Great Ape” known as Bigfoot in north America and as Yeti in Asia.

          It is only Climate “science” which has gone nowhere in the past 30 years. And no wonder, they are the ones chasing shadows and mirages.

          • Akshually……

            Fascinating real science about the “Yeti”: they took two different hair samples from about a thousand miles apart (Bhutan, Pakistan), and tested them against a DNA databank.

            Turns out the DNA sez: polar bear.

            Not just that, but a polar bear from 10,000 years ago. So, in other words, a previously undiscovered bear species that branched off when brown and polar bears did.

            As the saying goes, truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.

        • The only other “sciences” with such an abject record of failure are Ufology and Cryptozoology

          You owe Ufology and Cryptozoology massive apologies, they do not deserve being compared to the snake pit of charlatans that contain the likes of M. Mann

        • They are truly the modern Piltdown men. Amazing that the epicenter is EAU, what’s in the water there?

        • Absolutely right.
          Look at the.progress made with respect to the wide band claimed for Climate Sensitivity.

          This is the most central and fundamental issue and no progress in 30 years.

          Things in this so called science appear to progress at glacial pace!

          • There has been a lot of progress pegging ECS toward the low end. The powers that be just don’t want to acknowledge that.

          • RayG,
            In the next glacial cycle, Hansen will be pointing at New York and claiming “See, I was right, New York is covered with water!”

            He’ll never point out that he failed to mention its solid state.

        • Well put Mr Courtney, your final sentence reminds me of the witch hunt against President Trump.
          “We we know what crime we would like to convict him on – so now we need to get/invent evidence”
          Sound familiar?

          • I’d say it’s a bit of both. They’re witch-hunting to find an excuse to lynch (impeach) him on.

          • Oh, I’d say they’ve got a little more than impeachment in mind – IF they can get him out of office, my guess they will do everything can to destroy the man, everything he’s built, everyone he knows or loves, up to and including imprisonment… or worse if they can manage.

            This is hate.

          • Indeed Joel. They absolutely see it as a divine mission to utterly destroy him, his family, his associates, and his supporters. and they’ll stop at nothing to do it. We saw a just a tiny glimpse of the lengths they’re willing to go during the Kavanaugh confirmation fight.

      • Look at the senders/recipients of these emails, then look at the people at the top of climate science today – you’ll see the vast majority are still there, only in even more influential positions.

    • Those 20 different contributors may all agree, but they could all still qualify for the “Wilson Award ”

      “When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.”- Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson

      But I’m digressing and would like to turn to Phenology

      The good people at the Royal Society have amalgamated the 250 years of 3m records from the UK’s Phenology Network and they’ve produced a graph from them. https://bit.ly/2C4ynQe The black bars are periods of 25 years. The higher up the stack the bars – the later that plants have started to flower. the further down, the earlier. Obviously, as the climate gets warmer flowering will take place much sooner.

      The latest 25 year period is not far off the same flowering timing as that at the beginning of the 20th century and if climate was changing so much then there would be a clearly identifiable change – but there isn’t. Plant data does not need adjusting and the records have been compiled scientifically.

      So, which scientists are wrong?

    • The CMIP data set uses about 100 different computer models to try to predict the climate. And they’re all always wrong because they use the same flawed assumptions regarding CAGW. It doesn’t matter HOW MANY you dredge up if they’re all wrong.

      RE: the Wiki chart – if you really want to see how badly flawed it is, try start here https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=hockey+stick

      Many peer reviewed papers cited, but I’m not going to do your homework for you.

    • Oh, yeh. Fun irony for those who like that sort of thing — from PDF page 1134-1135 of the “E E. Overpeck email records released to E E 2-5-19” pile is this gem from Overpack to Pinar Yilmaz of Exxon:

      “I’m also quite intrigued by what Exxon-Mobil and the University of Arizona could do together on the climate change front.”

  7. On page 978 of 1050 in the 2019/02/00249611.pdf file, there is this from Malcolm Hughes in 2000 (which I don’t remember from the Hughes email archive released earlier),and long before M&M got involved in Mann’s “Nature trick”:

    ===================
    From: Malcolm Hughes
    To: Michael E. Mann
    Cc: rbradley@geo.umass.edu
    Subject: Re: close call
    Date: Monday, July 31, 2000 3:00:26 PM
    Dear Mike – I have read and re-read the draft, and have come to the
    conclusion that it would be a mistake to publish it. I would also urge
    you not to publish it. I think my enthusiasm aroused by the first
    version of the figure allowed me to ignore the most important
    problem. In the 1999 GRL paper the dangers of using too few
    proxies for a hemispheric reconstruction were rehearsed – that was
    our intention. That this new version of your post-1980 calculations
    should be so sensitive to the omission of a single record is very
    worrying indeed.
    It should also be noted that nothing much happens
    in the ‘new’ reconstruction until the last three years. I fear this would
    give a wonderful opportunity to those who would discredit the
    approach we used in MBH 1998 and 1999. They would almost
    certainly seize it to attack the use of the MBH99 reconstruction in
    the IPCC.
    On reflection, I think it would be much wiser for use to keep our
    powder dry, and if challenged in a creditable forum point out that we
    are working on assembling a dense and high quality proxy data set
    that comes out nearer to present.

    When will you next be in Amherst? Cheers, Malcolm
    =======
    (my bold)

    Note: Does a real scientist “work on assembling a dense and high quality data set comes out nearer to present.”???Or do real scientists work on data sets and let them speak for themselves.

    This statement by Hughes goes directly to suggest the mindset of a Cherry-picking, manipulative hack scientist working on message, and not concerned about science or truth.

    • It’s clear that their efforts are directed toward promoting a message and not advancing science.

        • I’ve considered myself in the ‘skeptic’ ranks for over a decade. I don’t ever recall an argument that the climate gate emails were not real. To the contrary, I seem to recall the focus by the ‘victims’ was more of ‘who did it’.

          • Oh, there are enough commentators on other sites who will tell you that the emails are fake.

            I think its more of the Step 1 of progressive tactics: always start muddying the waters early.

            In this case, they start off with “the emails are fake”, then when they know they can’t defend that one, move to:

            Step 2: “you can’t prove all the emails are real”, then on to:
            Step 3: “they are real, but out of context”, followed by:
            Step 4: “ok, they’re in context, but you don’t have them all, so its unfair to use them”, followed by:
            Step 5: “its unfair to have serious, hard working scientists provide the remaining emails that will clarify what we are trying to keep muddy”.

    • What is wrong as scientists they know there are issues with what they are doing yet they are trying to hide them because of politics because they need a narrative. If anyone ever doubts you can’t be a scientist and and activist that statement right there is why you can’t.

    • Joel,
      I think this comment may be unfair to Hughes. I read it that ‘closer to present’ means ‘closer in time to present’, a dig at Mann’s proxy set that stops many years back and let’s him splice in the unsmoothed modern temperature record. Looks like you may have been thinking ‘closer to present temperatures’, which would imply cherry-picking.

    • In other words, your work doesn’t stack up, but let’s keep believing it does. Don;t say anything until we can somehow cobble together data that does prove what we ant.

    • Not so hilarious Eric when the vast majority of the free worlds media still slavishly parrots this fake emergency. Sadly I believe they’ve proof read it all and come to the conclusion that there’s nothing to see here move on because the establishment/media will cover for them.
      We can’t fight this with reason anymore.

  8. Both of the featured emails were available before. The self-confidence, arrogance and bullying are all in evidence.

    I think the team found comfort in their introspective back-biting club. Remarkable. So clear and leaving no room for second thoughts. And none of it sounded honest – it was about “team” not “truth” at all. I find it very academic in the modern sense.

  9. As far as i can determine in pdf named: 00249611.pdf are only Hughes. These are NOT the Overpeck (during the period of his involvement in AR4) emails we’ve been waiting for. These are the Malcolm Hughes emails and nothing goes beyond 2005.

    And all the other documents posted here are simply 1 page letters.
    ===

    Now I can’t get to the 00249611.pdf document anymore. Everything is now linking to the same PDF document???!!!

    What happened?

    • Anthony, CTM, mods,

      Seriously, You need to check the actual URL links to the PDF documents above. They now seem to all be pointing to the same cover letter. I cannot get to the 1,050 page pdf anymore (I do have a copy of it saved now though on my computer). But I cannot get the Overpeck file. I’ve have checked this in both FireFox and Safari browsers. Same for both. All links point to the cover letter now.

      Did someone at WordPress hack your website/post here?

      Joel

      (Click on the blue numbers or the words that are BELOW the PDF image, the PDF image always show the cover letter, ignore that) MOD

    • On page 389 of the Overpeck emails, here he is in September 22, 2005 lamenting about Crichton’s State of Fear novel, and he disses on his fellow scientists who “”think” they are climate savvy.” (his words) for believing Crichton
      Too funny.

      ==========================
      From ???@??? Thu Sep 22 00:12:22 2005
      To: hegerl@duke.edu
      From: Jonathan Overpeck
      Subject: Re: Fwd: Inhofe activities
      Cc: TomCrowley
      Bcc:
      X-Attachments:
      Message-Id:
      In-Reply-To:
      References:

      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 "think" 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
      JTO-019581
      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.</

      • “… climate savvy scientists, who actually got fooled by his very selective use of
        science …”.
        =============================================
        Among the claims found in State of Fear (Michael Crichton 2004):
        .carbon dioxide stimulates plant growth (p. 421).
        .since 1980, the Sahara Desert has been shrinking, not expanding (p. 421).
        .the rate of emergence of new diseases has not changed since 1960 (p. 421).
        .there are no accurate estimates for the rate of species extinction (p. 422).
        .extreme weather, including hurricanes, has not become more frequent (P. 426).
        .a renewable-energy technology that can replace the use of fossil fuels does not exist (p. 479).
        .Antarctica is getting colder, and the thickness of the ice is increasing (P- 193)*
        .the urban heat-island effect on the temperature record has been underestimated (p. 384)
        All the claims are stand up today * except Antarctic cooling but certainly there has been no net warming during the entire sixty-year record.
        https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/19/jse_19_2_deming.pdf

        • Good summary, Chris. I have State of Fear and regularly offer it to my dysfunctional friends, you know the Greenies, and they react to the offer like offering Roughing It to a Mormon.

          • I’ve tried that too – invariably, I get a variation on the ‘appeal to authority’ – ‘he’s just a science fiction writer’.

            Except one young lady who was more concerned that the two main characters would become a romantic item.

            Sigh.

        • The thing he said in that book that made me stop and go – woah – was when he talked about the great northern “primeval” forests of North America. Before they took root men were living here.

          He left way too soon.

    • yup
      tim flannerys got ties and is “concerned”
      funny how alt news is sledged but AC will run buzzfeeds at any time
      even when theyre admitted lies, they dont run retractions either.
      ie some of the trump bashing /russian ones.

    • Buzzfeed was moral advocacy, rather than journalism (hard news reporting). Once your readers no longer believe the publication/website you write for, they won’t bother returning.

      Moral advocates don’t die, they only fade away…..

  10. WUWT’ers,

    Anthony’s links above no longer work, as they all point to the same cover letter.
    Go to this website (below) to get the actual documents.

    http://climatelitigationwatch.org/university-of-arizona-climategate-records-in-full/

    Joel

    PS: and be advised, these are not the Overpeck emails that we’ve been waiting for from Dr. David Schnare.

    (Click on the blue numbers or the words that are BELOW the PDF image, the PDF image always show the cover letter, ignore that) MOD

      • They have damaged science.
        One area that has not been raised that was damaged irretrievably is the trust that can be put in research papers. What climategate and this mail dump have shown is that you cannot rely on the ethics of authors of papers. This leads to a requirement for repeatability and replication – that other areas of science are now repeatedly failing. Peer review appears to be meaningless and often no more than a technical writing review.
        The days that papers could be cited without repeating, replicating or finding 3rd party replication of their research have gone.
        The loss of trust in scientists may never be reversed

        • There used to be ramifications for publishing poor papers – public chastisement by leaders in the field, loss of respect and standing, loss of support, loss of position etc.

          Today, unless caught blatantly creating fraudulent data, there appears to be no penalty for poor quality work. And in climate science, since the data appears completely malleable, nothing is off the table. As long as you can add a publication to your CV, all’s good.

          • As always, good to bookmark:

            https://www.google.ca/search?{google:acceptedSuggestion}oq=retrac&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=retraction+watch

            Remarkably, climate science is almost immune to the replication crisis.

            And I think we all know why…

          • I still remember in grad school when this fraud came to speak and received a standing ovation from the academic faculty in attendance.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk

            There was no evidence of fraud publicly available at the time, but I had strong suspicions at the time based on his claims.

            For one, he said only one technician could successfully produce the cloned hESC, and that her secret was that she would sit in a rocking chair and sing to the incubators.

            I was heavily involved in cell culture experiments at the time, and i was never so desperate to try singing to the petri dishes just in case that was the secret sauce to make all my experiments turn out how i would like them to.

            I was surprised how many scientists would applaud something so blatantly unscientific just because the person saying it had gotten some notoriety.

        • Ian W

          Confidence can be re-established (eventually) by the supervisors of academic employees. The young, ambitious and deeply-flawed scientists discussing the subversion of their moral code should have been recognized and dealt with summarily by their academic seniors. It was not at the time.

          There are contributing facets for what followed. Greed clearly is a factor, a feeling of unaccountability, arrogance being substituted for the simple morality of telling the truth.

          Truth became a game to “win”. Huh? They sought to redefine what is perceived to be true to win an argument. As time passed, they got so far into the defence of their silly initial stance, and as the evidence against their claims mounted, turning back became impossible because of the terrible consequences for them personally if they did. They settled, as Mann did in 2008, for publishing papers, or guiding others to do the same, that made the same basic claims but leaned toward more defensible positions.

          Don’t forget to check the academic parentage of published researchers. Sometimes it explains a lot. Whose papers support the earlier works of their supervisors? Who supervised Amman’s PhD thesis? You get the idea? Follow the lineage of flawed ideas.

          Example:
          The currently circulating claims of the WHO (including on the WHO website) that cooking fire smoke “kills millions of people per year” comes directly from Michael Johnson of Berkeley, who sits on the relevant committee at the WHO. Johnson was a PhD student of Kirk R Smith who started the whole “solid fuels are dirty” and “kill millions”, based on scanty work in India in the nineties. Smith was the first PhD student of John Holdren, alarmist science advisor to Obama. Holdren was the first PhD student of John Ehrlich of “Population bomb” fame.

          The Climategate actors are institutionally and academically incestuous – with the predictable result one might expect from any study of inbreeding: increasingly defective ideas that have less and less viability in the long run.

          • Mega-updings! You nailed it (or I should say I agree completely with you).

            When I follow the comments here at WUWT, not very often but today is “special”, Feymann’s famous talk “Cargo Cult Science” always comes to mind. The “scientists”, like Mann et. al., who play science to only to “win” …. they are only fooling themselves. They are anti-science.

            http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

            “But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.

            The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. ”

            As far as I can tell, it’s you guys here at WUWT that have the integrity to not “fool yourself”. Keep up the fantastic work.

  11. I have the acronym that most accurately describes the climate alarmists.
    Scientific Clowns Undermining Mankind…

      • I’ve come up with an acronym as well:

        HICC-UP

        Human Induced Climate Change – UnProven

        As in, “our models have encountered a HICC-UP

  12. We only want good proxies. Bad, “denier” proxies are unwelcome in a Mann’s world.

    • Yes that is actual the worst part .. it’s called progressing a theory by selective omission and it is actually science fraud and even against journalistic standards.

        • Is that some pathetic attempt at sarcasm as in most countries they have a journalism association that gives them accreditation. Try entering a country by declaring on your entry visa you are a journalist as your occupation see what happens if you think there are no rules.

          You may argue the ethics and standards associations does not act often or hard enough in some countries but that is up to each individual country.

          • As bad as the current situation has gotten, having government determine who and who is not a “journalist” would be worse.

          • +42 MarkW. The only thing worse than the current crop of unethical trash that passes for journalism from the MSM would be a deep state government controlled unethical trash passing for journalism.

    • Mann is perplexed that anyone would have an objection to the way he has selected proxies, because in order to be good proxies they have to agree with the temperature record. As far as that goes, it sounds reasonable. But has he excluded proxies that generally agree with the temperature record, but which imply trends he doesn’t like? The best way to respond to that concern is to show all the proxies that were considered whether they were accepted or rejected.

      And when the proxy begins to diverge from the temperature record, you can’t truncate it — keeping the part you like and excluding the part you don’t like.

      • They didn’t really include proxies that ‘agree with the temperature record.’ Remember the divergence problem?
        They selected & tweaked weighting based upon what it did to the end result, but could only found proxies that suited them which all had a nasty problem: from sometime in the modern period after 1970, the proxy tended to go down when the temperatures went up: DIVERGENCE.

        >> And when the proxy begins to diverge from the temperature record, you can’t truncate it — keeping the part you like and excluding the part you don’t like.
        Of course you can, when you chop off the part that you do not like you can fool the masses 🙂

      • Assuming for sake of argument it was reasonable. Now that they have adjusted the past temperatures down, if this was replicated today how many of those proxies chosen would still match with “actual” temperatures. If not enough of them then this means their paper is no longer valid and should be withdrawn.

      • But it’s worse than that. he picks proxies that APPEAR to agree with the instrumental record – but since lots don’t, it is obvious that the proxies are not really valid at all. The ones he picks might agree for all the wrong reasons and not be proxies at all – why would a few work but most not?

        If you have 100 proxies and only say 15 “work” your conclusion should be that the you are not working with proxies!

  13. The U of A blocked Steve McKintyre from their archives. I protested as an alumni, and they denied it. Steve confirmed it, after which they no longer responded. Have at ’em.

  14. I love this one from Stefan Rahmsdorf on 8 May 2008 where he is lamenting to Tim Osborn at UEA about the possibility of his IPCC emails getting released:

    ==========================================
    Subject: Re: request for all correspondence related to IPCC
    Tim,
    I do have very grave concerns about this request because releasing my
    mails would be a breach of the confidentiality of mail, which is my
    constitutional right as a German citizen.
    We have some experience of fashist and communist governments in Germany
    opening letters of citizens, so we feel very strongly about this right here.
    Thus I specifically request you to not release any mail from me. This
    would be like tapping my phone when I talk to you on IPCC topics.
    Best wishes,
    Stefan

    =====================
    (Sorry if thus was already in the CRU climategate emails, but this is the first time I’ve seen this)

    Stefan- now off to the gulag for you……LOL.

    After Stefan’s reply to the group, many others from Norway, Switzerland, France, NCAR, all chimed in too that they didn’t want their emails released without their approval. oopps. (it’s all around page 2187 of 3723 pages of the Overpeck pdf and goes on for about 40 pages.)

    Then here’s another one from Stefan Rahmdorf to the WG1 Chap 6 group:
    ===========
    From ???@??? Fri May 16 09:09:49 2008
    Return-Path:
    To: Keith Briffa
    Subject: Re: Response to Holland – FYI

    Keith, fine with me.
    JTO-055412
    Astonishing that the skeptics scene is still obsessed with the hockey
    stick! I just got an angry mail by someone about it yesterday, who
    claimed IPCC had “withdrawn” the hockey stick, so how could I possibly
    still defend it on my website!
    Cheers, Stefan

    Stefan Rahmstorf
    http://www.ozean-klima.de
    http://www.realclimate.org
    ==========================

    So, Even Stefan realizes they made a hockey stick!!!!

    • Stefan realises there was a hockey stick, claims it should not be referred to in a pejorative manner, yet has it and defends it on his website??

      This does not amount to the slightest amount of scientific integrity. I mean what is left to lose?

  15. Notice that they still hide the decline by appending the thermometric data for the last few decades.

  16. We’ve cc’d Fortunat because we removed the specific bullet relating to
    biogeochemical dynamics and ocean acidification to avoid apparent conflict
    w/ the new carbon and biogeochem chapter.

    Bold mine. Further research required to see if they actually did this or not. But merely considering removing something because of “apparent” conflict is obviously going out of their way to create the perception of a consensus.

    • Reading that in full context it appears they did that because the bullet wasn’t relevant for that Chapter but for the new Chapter on that subject. And not because it conflicted with other data/conclusions.
      (see page 3721)
      J

  17. Well here’s a curious one:

    From: Malcolm Hughes
    To: Michael E. Mann
    Subject: Re: one thought
    Date: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:30:19 PM
    I still don’t know. If it were carbon dioxide, one would expect similar patterns
    on other continents in similarly arid mountain ranges, but they have not been
    found. This problem really bothers me…

    What’s curious? Well obviously Malcolm Hughes is responding to a question from Michael Mann and saying, no, whatever Mann is asking about doesn’t look like CO2.

    But I searched for the subject line (one thought) in the same pdf and the original email from Mann asking the question is not to be found. So what was he asking about? And why is the email in which he asked missing? Or is it in another folder (which would be confusing as h*ll)

    • That is because they looked at similar datasets from elsewhere (i.e. other than NA bristlecone pine) and could not find anything that could be used to extract the same patterns.
      That is to be expected because most species of trees behave more normal than bristlecone. Bristlecone samples are more like red noise because the tree ring widths are totally irreugular around the circumference of the tree. To such an extent that I would be surprised that you could match a horizontal core sample with one taken from the same tree but taken at a 120 degree angle (same tree, same horizontal slice).

      That means you can be sure that the samples will not match those from other trees nearby at the chronologically correct places, instead they will show a better match at almost any other place. So rings from (say) 1910 to 1960 will not match rings from another bristlecone from the same timerange, but will match somewhere else at random, say 1820-1870…. Any master you create in this way will be total nonsense.

      • How could you possibly know this unless you had read the original email that is being responded to? Which we don’t appear to have?

        • Simply because in order to find any pattern (CO2 or Temp or whatever) using a tree-ring chronology, you first need a proper tree-ring chronology in chronological order.

          You can not make a correct tree-ring chronology from Bristle-cone Pine using single horizontal samples, then match such samples from each tree to create the chronology (as you do with normal trees).
          That is because the tree-ring widths differ for the same year around the center core of the bristle-cone tree, in a discontinuous way.

          In most other types of tree (which do not bend & twist, but at most bend) you do not have that or you simply get a side where the rings are uniformly wider than the other side of the tree, which means that with scaling you still can tell the original relative tree-ring pattern (good enough for matching).

          Bristle-cone grows so irregular that it is quite common that even with scaling a sample from another angle (of same tree, same horizontal plane) can’t be matched to a sample from the same tree. Perhaps because it not just bends like an origami tree too often and too easy, but also twists around the axis like a corkscrew.
          Just look at a proper section (full disk taken from such a tree) from Bristle-cone and you will see the issue.

          So whatever pattern you find using a Bristle-cone (North-America) tree ring ‘chronology’ you are unlikely to find anywhere else when you only sample more normal trees like Oak, even Prune or regular Pine (both bend, but do not twist).

          • Thanks Jaap. But my interest is in the missing email. If it is truly missing, then they’ve violated the court order and raise the question of what else is missing.

          • Jaap

            That is fascinating and explains a lot. The surprise for me is that I have never heard this explanation before as the reason not to use bristlecone pine cores. The only possible use would be to take a full disk and map it every 5 degrees and produce an average for each year-ring. Then it could be compared with a different species (as you say) to show it can be calibrated properly.

            After that is validated, additional full slices could be admitted as proxy evidence of temperature or rainfall or CO2.

          • Hi David,

            Oh I see what you mean. We may be missing an email send by Mann to Malcolm Hughes with the subject line “one thought”.
            I see, that could become a bit problematic for Mann or the University 🙂

          • Jaam,
            Correct. One of the first things you do when auditing disclosure is to make sure all the email trails are complete. If someone deletes an email, but not the reply to it, there’s something missing. If someone hits reply all to a reply all to an original email, and then thinks to themselves, oh sh*t, I better cover this up, they have a problem. Because the web of emails on even a short cc list is now huge, and you have to find them ALL and delete them or your exposed. Contempt of court, violation of court order, summary judgment against (in a civil suit, go to jail in a criminal case). Plus, if another completely independent email thread refers to a comment in the first thread, now you have to find all those replies and forwards also. Why do you think Hillary simply wiped the server? She knew that selectively deleting correspondence would have been impossible to hide.

            I don’t have the time to go through this batch in that kind of detail. I stumbled across this single one. For all I know the orginal “one thought” email is simply disclosed somewhere other folder. I’ll leave it to others to be systematic, but I’d be pulling on that thread hard if I had the resources. Not only is the original question from Mann missing, there’s no reply from Mann to Hugh’s concerns. Hugh says the problem really bothers him and Mann doesn’t reply at all?

          • Jaap Titulaer: I found your comments on bristle-cone pines very interesting. I read the Mann paper years ago, and noted the lack of discussion of this kind of detail in the paper. Nowhere does he discuss factors that affect tree ring width – he really should have discussed all of this with a biochemist specialising in plant biology. As examples, what enzymes are involved? What temperature do they work at optimally? This was to me a major flaw in his paper, and I lost interest very quickly.
            But then, it seems that he didn’t talk to a statistician either!

      • To be clear, if the original email “one thought” is not in the release, then the University has failed to disclose it as legally required (though possibly unintentionally). Leading to the question of what else they missed.

        I’m not saying it isn’t there. I’m saying I cannot find it in the same batch that the response was in.

    • David:

      I’ve been guilty of changing the Subject line of emails while leaving the “Re:” in place, typically when doing a reply then a second reply before I get back a response. I know I’m not the only one who does this because I’ve also received emails this way. My only suggestion would be to look at MM’s emails he sent around the date/time stamp of the reply.

  18. Here’s another interesting one on climate models:
    My bold.

    ==============
    (from page 3598)
    Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500
    Subject: Future of the IPCC:
    From: J Shukla
    To: IPCC-Sec
    [and a lot of others – my comment]

    Dear All,
    I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on
    issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1
    (sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future).
    “There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in
    the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific
    basis for action”.
    1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the
    policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate
    change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a
    higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how
    confident are we about the projected regional climate changes?
    I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large
    errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are
    not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for “action”
    at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly
    referring to science based adaptation.

    For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the
    city of New Orleans – or more generally about the habitability of the
    Gulf-Coast – using climate models which have serious deficiencies in
    simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes.
    We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our
    models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate
    fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly
    waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and
    extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical
    instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans;
    floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO,
    monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere
    processes.
    It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make
    billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected
    regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
    simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate
    variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not
    guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the
    very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible
    science.
    It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a
    consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the
    “greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance”.
    2. Is “model democracy” a valid scientific method? The “I” in the IPCC
    desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered
    equally probable.
    This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may
    have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has
    shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models
    used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric.

    3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a
    robust scientific basis for action?
    Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity
    of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number
    of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not
    necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is
    possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient
    climate models are used by large communities simply because it is
    convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution
    IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient
    response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral
    boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response.

    Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks
    in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models
    themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution.

    Regards,
    Shukla

    =======================

    • “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

      I like this comment because it gets to the core of the issue — how rational it is to spend billions and trillions of dollars depends on the quality of the models.

      Advocates of radical action point out that a consensus estimate exists and that an average of the models represent the best predictions we have, and we are therefore justified in spending trillions of dollars because of what they show. They overlook the fact that models are still sh–. Someone else made the analogy that scientists are in the same place with climate models as Leonardo DaVinci was with designing aeroplanes.

      • “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

        Unless they lie about it. Simple misrepresentation would suffice, if they can get everyone on board.

        The question is, why bother? What is the point of misdirecting trillions of $ on a whim? Have they no sense of social responsibility to the whole of humanity groaning under the burden widespread political incompetence and international organized crime in its many forms?

        What could be more unethical than to attempt to convince the entre human population to engage in wasting their precious resources on a truly vast scale in order for this pathetic lot to win an academic argument that should not exist?

        If Ehrlich and Hansen had guessed differently – that mankind faced a glorious and peaceful future in a cooperating world community – the enormous waste of time and money on “fighting against a changing climate” could have been devoted to cleaning up the environment of our detritus, developing marvellous inventions to generate unlimited electrical power, and to the education and upliftment of our fellows.

        It is pretty obvious we could have done better, and that we still can, if we stop listening to these charlatans.

        • A very good post, thank you Crispin.

          I posted the following a decade ago – I am less charitable now.

          Best, Allan

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/03/pielke-jrs-take-on-an-amazing-conversation-with-a-climate-scientist/#comment-84260

          It is probably too late tonight to write anything sensible.

          However, I am concerned that people are losing balance on this very serious issue of alleged humanmade global warming..

          Having studied this subject for several decades, I have strong opinions.

          For the record, I think the climate changes we have experienced in the past decades are predominantly natural, not humanmade, and probably cyclical, related to either oceanic cycles such as the PDO, etc. or solar cycles, or both.

          I believe that Earth’s climate is insensitive to atmospheric CO2, and that recent increases in atmospheric CO2, of whatever cause, are not harmful to the environment, and could even be beneficial.

          I believe that many carbon abatement programs are at best uneconomic, and a waste of scarce global resources that should be dedicated to solving real problems – not squandered on imaginary ones.

          There is also the compelling moral issue of biofuels raising food prices, thus causing hunger among the world’s poor.

          I have grown frustrated by warmists’ repeated attempts to shut down this debate and to bully so-called climate skeptics (aka “deniers”) into silence. This bullying is highly unethical, and has extended to threats of violence, and worse.

          I have concluded, reluctantly, that some of the warmists’ research papers were not only in error, but were deliberately misleading.

          Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all of us on this side of the debate to not emulate the worst aspects of the warmists and their arguments.

          Specifically, hatred is self-defeating. So is excessive polarization.

          I think we will win this debate based on science and economics, but only after many hundreds of billions have been squandered on foolish alternative energy programs such as wind power and fuel-from-food.

          While this terrible waste is frustrating, it is not appropriate to drag ourselves into the mire in an attempt to compete with the other side.

          Frankly, I see signs of mental instability in the wild, irresponsible statements attributed to several prominent warmists. Let us not join them down that self-destructive path.

          Best regards to all, Allan

      • If their “models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

        Why do they continue to insist that governments spend said billions and trillions? They know their modeling isn’t accurate, yet they continue to demand the money be spent? On what basis exactly?

        • Oh they’ll tell you that they were discussing “only” climate on a REGIONAL scale as not being adequately represented, but insist they still have the “right answer” in “general.” Which is ludicrous BS, of course, but that’s the type of mindset you’re dealing with.

      • Where’s the update on this guy? He committed fraud and has he suffered any consequences?

    • “…..but at the very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible science.” This is in, at least some, fisheries law and needs to be taken out or clarified. I read papers often where the best, usually most recent, science is not very good. Sometimes it is only admitted buried late in the paper. They better hope they don’t get what they wish for if all they got is the best possible and it’s not good enough. Maybe this came from an old error, still scientists wanting to be advocates.

    • I’m with Crispin.

      Shukla’s commentary indicates that as of 2008, he knew the models-based claim of CO2-imposed warming is a crock. One presumes that everyone in his recipient list also knew that.

      Off-hand, I’d say Shukla’s email is prima facie evidence that they all know the whole CO2-induced global warming thing is a conscious f*r*a*u*d*.

  19. Here’s an amusing one from Phil Jones:

    (page 3664)
    —–Original Message—–
    From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
    Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
    To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann
    Subject: Wahl/Ammann

    Gene/Caspar,
    Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn’t appear to be in CC’s online first, but comes up if you search.
    You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
    Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.

    Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something
    to amuse themselves with.

    Cheers<
    Phil

    • Phil Jones is the figure in all this who first turned my opinion to full-on-skeptic. I was buying into the hockey stick and the “atmosphere-as-water-about-to-boil” imagery when he made one of science’s most infamous statements: (I paraphrase) “I’ve spent years on this data; why should I let you see it when you’ll just try to find something wrong with it?

      Imagine Brahe saying the same to Kepler. If Jones were a true scientist, he would have cried out “Yes! Take my data and marvel at its wondrous nature. You will see how it validates my every prediction!”

      Instead, we got “Nuh-uh, you can’t see it!”

      Way to go, Phil.

      • Kepler’s curve-fitting exercise with Tycho’s Martian observations dragged on for such an excruciatingly long time because he assumed that if the orbit were as simple as an ellipse, someone would already have noticed that fact.

        Were Mann analyzing the data, Mars’ orbit would have been whatever he wanted it to be, from an Aristotlean perfect circle to a figure eight, with epicycles, if that’s what theory called for.

        • John, your comment really needs an up-vote.

          Someone in Belgium sent me a link showing an (almost) pre-CO2 San Francisco just before the Big One in 1906.

          https://www.youtube.com/embed/v2u4J7Dbouo

          Unlike climate data, some events are too well-documented for anyone to be able to change the past.

        • “Kepler’s curve-fitting exercise with Tycho’s Martian observations dragged on for such an excruciatingly long time because he assumed that if the orbit were as simple as an ellipse, someone would already have noticed that fact.”

          Good story, John.

          People get in trouble when they assume too much. There’s a lot of that going around today, especially in climate science.

      • I liked the bit where he said he ‘contemplated suicide’ after the e-mail release – NOT the sort of thing an innocent man does – you do that when you’re caught and you think it’s all over.

        Of course, he didn’t take into account the total corruption that would come to his aid – how soon was he reinstated again?

          • When they were first release, everybody who didn’t like the implications of what was being said, either 1. Said they were stolen therefor you shouldn’t be reading them, or 2. They were fabricated lies. Mostly the MSM and similar personalities.

    • “Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! ” is this a gov’t record? If so is Phil Jones committing/advocating a crime?

  20. Not too sure what your message is, but to me the standout is they mostly show warming from say 1600 to 1800, which must be due to natural effects. Do the much beloved climate models account for these natural effects?

    • Yes. that is a very pronounced Hockeystick. It may be real.
      But I have my doubts.
      The key thing is that the recent data is taken from satellites and sea temperature measurements while the early part is a proxy that averages only sea temperature measurements. What’s the betting that the earlier heatwaves were missed by the process? If only one of the five measurements covered where that hot spot was it wouldn’t appear in the proxy. But it would with the satellites to support today.

      And the word “monthly” below ought to be considered carefully.
      Here is their method as described in the paper:

      Global time series and regional trends in total MHW days were derived using a combination of satellite-based, remotely sensed SSTs and in situ-based seawater temperatures. First, total MHW days were calculated globally over 1982–2015 at 1/4° resolution from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Optimum Interpolation SST V2 high-resolution data. Then, proxies for total MHW days globally over 1900–2016 were developed on the basis of five monthly gridded SST datasets (HadISST v.1.1, ERSST v.5, COBE 2, CERA-20C and SODA si.3). A final proxy time series was calculated by averaging across the five datasets. The five monthly datasets were used since no global daily SST observations are available before 1982. From these proxy time series, we calculated (1) the difference in mean MHW days over the 1987–2016 and 1925–1954 periods and (2) a globally averaged time series of total MHW days. Further details on this method and resulting proxy data can be found in Oliver et al.2. Note that these calculations use the same climatology period as above, 1983–2012.

      • is the grunion going on about Rossby? waves?
        i gather they do a once round the globe monthly whizzby
        and are due over Aus soon
        hope they bring rains to the sth of our land.

      • What a crock of BS. Developing ‘proxies’ on the basis of monthly gridded SST datasets (all the way back to 1900?) is equivalent to simply fabricating numbers. No one has any idea of what ocean temperatures were doing a century ago. They either weren’t measuring ocean temperatures (for the most part), and when they were, they were doing it wrong (sampling seawater intakes of ship engines). This study is more ‘Garbage In Garbage Out’. The Onion has more credibility than Nature Climate Change.

  21. Iused to get regular emails of wattsupwiththat. Suddenly they stopped coming. Please reinstate me as a recipient.

  22. Mann’s published works clearly show the MWP, that he describes as an anomaly.

    I think what is more at issue is his understanding as to how long it lasted for, what temperatures were reached and what was its geographical extent. He portrays it in his work as being fairly limited in its temperature increase, relatively short lived and perhaps more importantly that it was primarily a North Atlantic occurrence and there was no global synchronicity.

    More a limited luke warm period than a global warming occurrence

    tonyb

    • Tony

      The problem is the variation in temperature attributed to changes in the past is below the resolution of the measuring equipment.

      In fact that has been the case all along.

      What climate scientists do is weaponise ideology. Just as Huxley warned.

    • tonyb

      Mann’s early works (1988-99) do not show such a period of warmth. After he was severely embarrassed (no other words for it) with two papers by M&M in 2003-2004 he had to come up with some fall-back position lest he had to admit to incompetence. In 2008 (Nov if I recall correctly) he published something showing a MWP. The math was undone by M&M in about 4 weeks and published.

      He and the Team have always tried to sell the MWP as a regional event. They have to do that rather than deny it, as done earlier, because there is so much historical evidence in the North. Of course, since then, it has been shown to have been a global event because everywhere there are viable proxies for temperature, the MWP pops out like a sore thumb.

      The only reasons one might still claim, or want to claim, that it was regional is to support early claims that a) it wasn’t not there at all or b) that it was regional therefore the global average temperature was pretty much constant for 1000 years before evil humans came along and liberated old CO2 that used to be in the air but is now stored underground.

      Anyone who reads the background and understands what proxies were used and why and what happens if they are included or excluded comes away convinced that a) there was an MWP and b) that Mann et all claimed there was not and c) that they have been trying ever since to find and defend some corner of the kingdom of “It was not important to be a little incorrect and anyway we were misunderstood.”

      One big supporter of Mann’s position is Amman who published a supposedly supportive paper. It turns out that he is Mann’s PhD student and used the same data that Mann did – in short he replicated the erroneous result. So what? That constitutes “support”? Apparently it does over at RealClimate.

      The apple doesn’t fall far from the Bristlecone pine.

  23. It must have been an insider who knew his way around the university IT system. A disgusted Norfolk police didn’t try too hard to find her.

    • I believe the official line about Climategate is that a Russian Spy infiltrated the CRU, gathered all the data onto one file on one computer and then went outside to hack it.
      Thus outwitting the Norfolk constabulary.

      • why what was in it for them ?
        You see what is lacking from this claim , along with actual evidenced of it , is motivation.
        Any ‘hack ‘ as a cost benefit and although being able to do it in the first place is a ‘benefit’ that only really the case when the target is ‘worthwhile ‘ such has the FBI, CIA politicians etc. In the case you had CRU a department of a little known university which in ‘hacking ‘ there was little glory to be had in the hacking community and no financial advantage.
        And as for ‘lack of evidenced ‘ well to date the police have made this claim however they have offered no poof of it at all despite having longed dropped the case and any interest in it . In reality they probable went for an ‘easy out’ which the ‘Russia hackers’ claim give them.

        Someone on the inside would have both had access to the information and the will not release all the other e-mails that form part of daily life ,as it was not just a drop of ‘anything and everything ‘

        • Agreed. It had to be somebody who intimately familiar with the content of the communications and the implications. It was one of their own.

          • The official line doesn’t have to make sense. It just needs to be agreed to and adhered to by all involved.

      • The Russian spy wasn’t a “her”, as Coeur de lion suggest.
        It was Trump!

        Seriously, Climategate and these emails reveal actual “collusion” to promote and preserve an idea, “The Goal”, and not scientific inquiry and/or integrity.

  24. We haven’t been asked to review the paper. Therefore it is rubbish.

    Such arrogance.

  25. “p.s. I’m trying to talk Andy Revkin at the New York Times into doing a story on this”

    Certainly no symbiotic relationship exists. Shame on skeptics for even thinking it.

    • Similar thing happening here in Canada.

      As you might know, Captain Climate Change, aka Socks Boy, aka Male Feminist of the Decade, aka Prime Minister Zoolander Trudeau is in a spot of bother, as the Brits might have it. Basically, he was caught cozying up to a corrupt, but powerful Quebec company, and he might very well have to resign.

      Of course, his backers are in full spin mode, and one of the prongs of attack was that the Liberals would be able to place backpatting editorials across the nation’s newspapers…

      No, no collusion between the media and progressive governments. No, no, no!

        • The CBC cannot truthfully be described as his “backers”. They are shills. They fawningly promoted the Libs all through the last election and “Little Potato” gave them CDN$300m immediately after taking control power of the piggy bank.

          (That’s what they call him in China. Tu-doh means “potato”, presumably from “po-tay-doh”. They think he is a chip off the Big Potato and now he is about to get fried.)

      • Jane Philpott has resigned and the progressive media are being very unkind to Trudeau Jr. He’s in deep doggie do. link There’s talk of a caucus revolt. link

      • Yes, Mann said in 2009, “p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like.”

        Revkin on rare occasions let skeptics make/have their points. Mann et al wanted him to be their media mouthpiece and beyotch.

  26. The comments from Steve McIntyre (starting page 2543) and the ensuing barrage of resentful comments from others, is hilarious.
    Didn’t see them doing anything to address McIntyre’s concerns though!

  27. Funny that I haven’t seen or heard a word about this in the mainstream press – my guess is that they’ll spend a couple weeks workshopping the spin.

    It was basically the press who shoved the **** back up the horse in Climategate One – because, really, that should have been the end of it back then.

    • good on you Tom, after climategate 1,2,3 I’ve had enough

      reading them all is the only way. all or nothing

  28. I read through the first couple hundred pages, so far. I’m astonished at how completely the “community” of alarmists disrespect all notions of falsification. Nowhere, even from Briffa, do I see any self questioning, self-doubt, or discussion of how might we have fooled ourselves. I see complete prosecution mode. How do we select data to make graphs that prove our point. How can we prove, instead of how can we falsify. Mann appears almost manic about the McIntyre and McKittrick paper in the E&E journal. There are a few times when Briffa and Malcolm Hughes try to calm Mann down, to get him to see that his inflamed emotions will work against his scientific claims. But there seem to be no insistence during those messages that injecting falsification or self-skepticism back into the actual science is needed. The same pressures of, “we need to respond right now, to immediately discredit McIntyre and McKittrick, is apparent, presumably so that none of their critiques of the hockey stick would impact future IPCC assessments. And no apparent self-awareness that in their response to M&M, they are pointing our how the original “audit” is misusing information and data, while all the time they were actively blocking and obfuscating so that M&M would have a more difficult time in trying to replicate their work in the first place.

    Hughes did do a nice job of FINALLY suggesting that a clear and sensible archive of all the proxy data being used by the hockey team is needed in order for posterity to use those data for both new and replication purposes. While suggesting that such a move could help their own credibility in the here and now, as something of a show of good faith on their parts, it also subtly but clearly impugns the levels of previous commitment to good science via replication by the hockey team.

    Feynman, Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, Heisenberg, Einstein, Copernicus are rolling over in their graves.

      • Always keep this one handy, back when science was science:

        http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45122/45122-h/45122-h.htm#Page_190

        Every true Science is like a hardy Alpine guide that leads us on from the narrow, though it may be the more peaceful and charming, valleys of our preconceived opinions, to higher points, apparently less attractive, nay often disappointing for a time, till, after hours of patient and silent climbing, we look round and see a new world around us.

        PROFESSOR MAX MÜLLER

    • ‘I’m astonished at how completely the “community” of alarmists disrespect all notions of falsification. Nowhere, even from Briffa, do I see any self questioning, self-doubt, or discussion of how might we have fooled ourselves.’

      All those things you’re NOT seeing branch from one common factor that you ARE – simple elitist conceit.

    • It’s called ‘group-think’ – for a good reason. Except in Hollywood, it’s ‘grope-think’. However, in to all intents and purposes, it’s the same thing: some grope bodies, some grope intellect.

    • The related fields of climate science seem to be not unlike nutrition science from the 1970s to the recent past. Scientists play king-of-the-mountain. Maintaining status depends on squashing competing viewpoints.

      “In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?”

      https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-sugar-conspiracy

    • “I’m astonished at how completely the “community” of alarmists disrespect all notions of falsification. Nowhere, even from Briffa, do I see any self questioning, self-doubt, or discussion of how might we have fooled ourselves.”

      to falsify your notion that they disprespect the notion of falsification you have to read more rather than stopping when you came to your conclusion.

      Briffa osborne and others were pretty critical of Mann.

      maybe you fooled yourself about them not being concerned.

      just a thought.

      there are thousands of mails.

      most people fool themselves by stopping before they read them all.

      • I’ve wondered myself if Briffa may have been the one who released the original climategate emails.

      • Mosher, I KNOW Briffa was critical of Mann. So what? The whole point of Climate Gate, the behaviors of Mann and others, widely seen as “leaders” is a power struggle. The struggle is between the dichotomy that Stephen Schneider so helpfully telegraphed, between “honest” and “effective.” Among the hockey team, the leading lights of climate science, of the self-selected cult that calls itself “the community, honesty and objectivity lost. The hockey stick won. Mann won. Ben Santer won. Honest, but ambiguous observation lost and mind-numbing and often bogus statistics won. Always wrong GCMs won, averaging lots of wrong together won, group think won, so-called experts promoting self-serving expert opinion, won. And the people and reporters who go along with this bullshit now, even those who aren’t quite sure, those who don’t know, are ambivalent, and even a few who disagree, but go along to get along, are equally culpable. It should be so easy, now, with nearly 20 years of NOT HAVING A HOCKEY STICK WHERE ONE WAS PREDICTED, to say, uh, yeah, we were a little too excited back in the 1990s, and our predictions have not panned out. Maybe we should get back to having some dispassionate science, again, to step back from the methods of the last 30 year, to rethink the way we do climate science. That’s the e-mail I’m waiting for.

        I don’t see any like that from “the community.” The closest things are those few people who publicly bailed on the IPCC for its tendentiousness, or quit their APS or GRU or Royal Society memberships. Ironically, such shows of principle will get people ostracized as D-Nye-ers. That’s how cult-think works.

        That’s the real point, Mosher. Science is not about consensus building. It’s about figuring out what the objectively true thing is, and presuming that rational people will follow that truth, eventually. There should be no “community.” In this case, the community is the corruption. Politics and science cannot mix to this level. Look at all that’s happened. Peer review now equates to absolutely valid science. Cultish devotees hurry to cite, so credibility is unfairly and wrongly promoted. Expert opinion in climate science, if you’re on the correct side, has all the authority of God Almighty. This doesn’t end at the people in these e-mails. It goes all the way through to why Josh Willis deleted those cold data points, without anyone every telling him to do that.

        I believe the peer pressure on Keith Briffa, and his go-along-to-get-along response, cost him his sense of well being in his last few years of his life. I’m pretty sure he didn’t want or enjoy seeing his work being turned into Michael Mann’s MWP and LIA smoothing-out exercise. That pressure and cognitive dissonance is why I’ve sometimes thought Briffa might have been the leaker we know as FOIA. I don’t know that he was, I’m only wondering out loud. But if he was, wouldn’t that represent a certain type of poetic justice for the hockey team?

        Break up the community. Break up the cult. Stop the funding. Get the US out of the UNFCCC. Cut the budgets for modeling, the NSF, for GISS, for wind turbine subsidies and more. It’s the only way. Then we’ll listen to the bureaucracy and the University presidents and administrators howl. And a healthier, happier, more well-adjusted society can laugh and tell them, sorry, but you brought this on your own selves.

  29. Did Mann ever provide a response to the McIntyre and McKittrick paper that describe it as “crap” and “stunt”?

  30. MODS,
    A suggestion.
    This might not be possible to do and/or might place to large a burden on you (Anthony and the mods), but may I suggest that the comments directly related to the actual emails be put into a separate “place”, like the Climategate drop down, less the extraneous comments (like all of mine so far)?
    Leave this thread alone, just pull out the significant comments or just the emails commenters have quoted?
    (I suspect that one reason for this post is for help in sorting through them all.)

  31. In 2011 AG of Virginia sued Mann and UVA to see e-mails related to climate science. Are these the same e-mails from Mann that we’re blocked before?

    • These emails involve some at the University of Arizona and not aimed at Mann while he was at UVA.
      However, there are emails to or from Mann while he was at UVA included.
      It would not include emails to, say Phil Jones, that weren’t copied/forwarded to those at UA.
      So some, but not all of the emails the Virginia AG wanted.

      • What legal argument was used to reveal these E-mails? Was it the same used by Cuccinelli in Va? How are these e-mail troves similar or different. Would revealing all of the UVa e-mails be useful for understanding the thoughts of Mann. Thanks for the above

  32. We know about crowd-funding, Anthony, but you have employed crowd-finding! More power to their eyeballs! As well as your own.

    Were I Michael Mann or some of his correspondents, I would be seriously embarrassed by some of the contents of these emails.

  33. Didn’t someone, during a Senate hearing, say he got an Email from someone saying ” We must do away way with MWP”?

  34. All proxies are at high risk of having an unknown or rejected but equally possible confounding factor. Autism was for decades considered to be caused by the environment, IE parenting issue, or even abusive cause. It came to be known as the “cold mothering syndrome”. This due to the fact that eyes on the ground are not a part of proxies. We extrapolate the cause because we were not actually there.

    Current theories surrounding anthropogenic warming is at high risk of having a confounding factor because past warming of any kind is thought to be the result of increasing CO2. However, CO2 and warming may have increased in the past because of a confounding factor that increased both.

    So too Autism. Mothers learned how to decrease social stress on their children with autism by not forcing interaction, leading to the misnamed “cold mothering” description. We now understand both mother and child interactions are caused by a genetic syndrome. What is instructive is that many successful methods used today are successful because someone finally listened to mothers and learned how to better interact with these children.

    • It’s axiomatic that cause precedes effect. In the case of CO2, it ought to be obvious that when an increase in temperature leads an increase in CO2, it is the temperature that is the cause of increasing CO2 and not the other way around. Then, one must search for why temperature changed in the first case.

    • That’s a terrible analogy.

      Reading your comment was like hearing a female comedian. Irrelevant, boring, and out of place comments about something female.

  35. I’m trying to get my arms around what this group believes regarding the MWP. I didn’t see anyone who denied the existence of the MWP. Do any of them disavow the validity of Mann’s hokey stick graph, which fails to show a MWP?

    >Of course, Chap 6 had a nice box on the MWP – it’s in the literature
    >and thus of course is not something that simply goes away, despite
    >what these guys think we’re saying.

    Phil:
    I’ve also seen the quote about getting rid of the MWP – it would
    >> seem to go
    >> back many years, maybe even to around the TAR. I’ve no idea where it came
    >> from. I didn’t say it!

    Overpeck:
    I googled “We have to get rid of the warm medieval
    >>>> period” and “Overpeck” and indeed, there is a
    >>>> person David Deeming that attributes the quote to
    >>>> an email from me. He apparently did mention the
    >>>> quote (but I don’t think me) in a Senate hearing.
    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, and that he’s taking the quote out of
    >>>> context, since know I would never have said what
    >>>> he’s saying I would have, at least in the context
    >>>> he is implying.
    >>>>
    >>>> Any idea what my reaction should be? I usually
    >>>> ignore this kind of misinformation, but I can
    >>>> imagine that it could take on a life of it’s own
    >>>> and that I might want to deal with it now, rather
    >>>> than later. I could – as the person below
    >>>> suggests – make a quick statement on a web site
    >>>> that the attribution to me is false, but I
    >>>> suspect that this Deeming guy could then produce
    >>>> a fake email. I would then say it’s fake. Or just
    >>>> ignore? Or something else?
    >>>> His “news” (often with attribution to me) appears
    >>>> to be getting widespread coverage on the
    >>>> internet. It is upsetting.

    >>>>>Dear Dr Overpeck,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I recall David Deeming giving evidence to a
    >>>>>Senate hearing to the effect that he had
    >>>>>received an email including a remark to the
    >>>>>effect “We have to get rid of the warm medieval
    >>>>>period”. I have now seen several comment web
    >>>>>pages attribute the email to your. Some serious
    >>>>>and well moderated pages like
    >>>>>ukweatherworld would welcome a post from you if
    >>>>>the attribution is untrue and would, I feel
    >>>>>sure, remove it if you were to ask them to. I am
    >>>>>sure that many other blogs would report your
    >>>>>denial. Is there any reason you have not issued
    >>>>>a denial?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>David Holland

      • Overpeck wouldn’t have sent such an email to David Deeming. He’d have sent it to someone he’d been working with.

  36. “Dear All,
    I’ve done no more on this, but am hopeful next week of
    adding in the text I have from Janice and Juerg. The only
    other contact I’ve had is with Sandy and Gene (and Christoph
    before he left). I’ve also talked to Francis.
    Can we make some progress on this soon? Juerg did
    his bit whilst his wife Elena was successfully having their second
    child, so I expect a few more of you to show such commitment
    to the cause !
    Cheers
    Phil”

    JTO-036364

    Phil asks for commitment to the cause.

  37. How science works. “…you all know the rules of the game.”
    You have to keep the sponsors’ lenders happy.

    JTO-036610
    From: Thorsten Kiefer
    Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability – Review Paper – reminder
    Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 12:10:19 +0200
    To: Phil Jones

    >tomorrow will be the one-year
    anniversary of the PAGES/CLIVAR & EPRI workshop in Wengen, which as we
    were assured repeatedly from many of you, was very enjoyable and fruitful. As
    pleasant as it was to get enthusiastic feedback, in the long term it will not
    suffice to feed the workshop sponsors and to keep their lenders happy. From
    talking with Larry Williams from EPRI I can tell that he is of the</
    same opinion. The only product from the workshop that has materialised so far is
    the EOS report (Thanks Mike et al.!), whereas the synthesis and the PR
    Challenge haven't. Undoubtedly, you all know the rules of the game, so my only
    point here is to remind you that they do operate., PAGES and CLIVAR are also about to engage
    in the follow-up workshop project on "proxy data uncertainties" that was born
    out of the Wengen meeting. So many of you might yet again enjoy another
    workshop. We as sponsors are happy to engage in this, because of the important
    science questions addressed and excellent scientists involved. But, as said
    above, to maintain support it is paramount that the ideas result in
    products.

  38. I thought this to be an interesting comment. It’s laudable that someone emphasizes model validation. What reason could anyone have for thinking that there is nothing to gain from paleoclimate studies? How is it possible to understand man-made influences on the climate without also understanding the natural forcings, causes, and effects?

    How can anyone think that these models are robust enough to justify spending hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars?

    JTO-036657
    From ???@??? Thu Jul 12 10:16:31 2007
    Return-Path:

    >Hi Heinz
    I am in agreement with your outline – I would
    like to stress my own bias that PAGES (and the
    rest of us) need to be pursuing the issue of
    model validation (or specific process validation
    if you prefer) . There is much to be done on the
    area of exploring how models simulate the climate
    variability (and the nature of the association
    with forcings) that we reconstruct from the
    palaeodata. Many people, scientists among them,
    believe that the issue of global warming has
    nothing to gain from palaeolcimate studies and
    they are wrong. Issues such as the climate
    sensitivity of models versus the real world and
    the roles of specific forcings and their
    influence on the future, represent important foci
    for continued study. I would like to see this
    area of work and collaboration between
    palaeoclimatologists and climate (and ecological)
    modelers as an explicit priority of future work.

    • ‘Many people, scientists among them, believe that the issue of global warming has nothing to gain from palaeolcimate studies and they are wrong” because we need to be on the gravy train too. LOL

      • Any study of paleoclimate is likely to show trends and cycles, which must be ascribed to natural causes. Further study may also show that today’s trends are not unusual, and therefor perhaps not alarming.

  39. I find nothing wrong with this statement. If an area is important and deserves more funding, it’s certainly appropriate for scientists to advocate for more study. But let’s just recognize that scientists are human beings who are in competition for status, recognition, and funding. There’s nothing unique about a scientist who receives funding from an oil company.

    JTO-036662
    “I also agree that we have to show to to a broader community (including
    especially the press and our politicians) how important paleoclimatic studies
    are. This is also important for our future funding.
    Very best regards, Heinz”

    • One result offer nothing ‘scary ‘ and so gives little impact , another results undermines claim you made and so offers nothing but bad news , another result can be sold as ‘scary ‘ give you headlines and supports you earlier claims .
      Now if you chasing funding which are you going to go for ?
      And remember this is NOT related to accuracy or scientific validity.
      You can make the case that they are acting ‘human ‘ but it they themselves who claim otherwise.

  40. How long could the list have been if skeptics make up only 3% of all scientists?

    JTO-057419
    From: Phil Jones
    Subject: Re: Fwd: canada.com Story

    Saw Tim Ball’s name on a long list of Canadian skeptics some
    time ago. Can’t now find it but I recall a couple of other surprises there.”

  41. If water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, how is it accounted for in the models? Oh, you don’t need models. You just need CO2 inputs, physics, observed data, and climate sensitivity.

    JTO-057804
    “From: Susan Solomon
    Subject: Re: Revised Common Questions for the WG1 AR4

    I have a few comments on the other questions and your comments on the
    comments…

    Q12 (How reliable are the models used to make projections…) From my
    experience it is worth pointing out that for the most basic
    projection, i.e., that further increase in CO2 will lead to
    significant warming of the magnitude suggested by IPCC, you do not
    need models at all. All you need for that conclusion is some idea of
    how much CO2 will rise, the climate sensitivity, and perhaps some idea
    of the time lag in the response. How much CO2 will rise (given
    emissions) can be seen from how it has risen in the past, e.g., by
    assuming an airborne fraction of about half. The climate sensitivity
    can be estimated from data (e.g., Lorius et al. Nature 1991 from the
    Vostok data) without using a climate model. Time lag due to ocean
    thermal inertia can be estimated with a simple back-of-envelope
    calculation, but is not essential to see there is a global warming
    problem.

    Discussions with climate sceptics and lay
    people clearly show that many people mistrust computer models –
    understandably, since they cannot understand or check what those
    models do, they are magical black boxes to them. Hence I think it is
    very important that our basic warning of a future global warming is
    not just or mainly a prediction of computer models. It is in fact
    mainly based on simple physics and data. We do not need people to
    trust any computer model in order to believe that there is a serious
    global warming problem. We only need to ask them to trust some basic
    physics and oberserved data.
    It is a key line of argument of the sceptics to say: "The entire
    global warming scare is just based on computer models, and models
    cannot be trusted". While it is worth arguing that models are
    pretty good by now, it is even more important to rebutt the sceptics
    line that all is just based on models.

    Q16 (How likely … changes in ocean circulation?) Perhaps it is
    helpful to consider the results of our expert elicitation (see
    attached ppt), as an indication for what several experts think. We are
    trying to publish first results quickly, so perhaps this could become
    a citable source in time for AR4.

    Rob van Dorland’s comment on water vapour: I strongly support that the
    role of water vapor as the most important greenhouse gas needs to be
    stated and explained prominently. Reason is that this is a very common
    sceptics argument: "The IPCC is ignoring that not CO2, but water
    vapour is really the most important greenhouse gas!" Was put to
    me again last week, and is probably due to the fact that sceptics with
    some scientific credentials (i.e., Jan Veizer) are pushing this
    argument in the public media (see example below, "water vapour is
    climate driver", for those who read german). I think putting to
    rest some of those standard sceptics arguments, that come up again and
    again, is one of the goals of the CQ pages in AR4.

    Cheers, Stefan

    • “We only need to ask them to trust some basic physics and observed data.”

      … should read “botched physics and manipulated data.”

      But hey, you say “basic”, I say “botched” — they both start with “b” — is there really such a big difference?

    • So what about doing away with the back radiation theory which I agree does not sit well with the second law, and slow down escape of heat to space just as a bottleneck slows and backs up traffic? (I’m am not a scientist)

    • hijacking threads again?

      This post is a literal word for word cut/paste job I read earlier today at JoNova land.

      That was in answer to a topic about Brexit being blamed on Climate Change.

      This is in a thread dedicated to email analysis.

      What is your end game here, Young Scientist? You seem to be hijacking other people’s blogs and other people’s threads which at best is impolite.

  42. 260 comments of nothing burger.
    Wow. Eight years to get this, and ?

    [the duplicate post was deleted.mod]

  43. I’m still trying to understand what the “in” crowd believes about the MWP. They seem to resent it when people imply that they deny it exists, but then they seem to deny that it exists.

    I’m starting to believe it’s a matter of lexicon. What they mean by the MWP is something different than what McIntyre and McKitrick mean by the MWP.

    JTO-059413

    From ???@??? Sat May 14 20:11:20 2005
    Return-Path:

    Wed May 11 10:59:45 2005 Pacific Time

    Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise; NCAR
    Paleoclimatologist Available to Comment BOULDER, Colo., May
    11 (AScribe Newswire) — Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the
    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment
    on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre
    and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
    The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of
    global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000
    after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a
    research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes
    published in the journal Nature in 1998. Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred
    University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field
    reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer
    code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous
    modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research
    papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters
    and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the
    code for their own evaluation of the method. Ammann and Wahl’s findings
    contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century
    global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore
    make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre
    and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would
    significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick
    shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of
    the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses
    at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last
    December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in
    Denver this year. McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers were
    published in Energy and Environment (2003 and 2005) and in Geophysical
    Research Letters (2005).

  44. In NZ paper yesterday.

    NZ Herald
    By: Jim Salinger and Michael Mann.

    2. Because there is such a powerful consensus, there is no requirement to give climate deniers a platform. A debate with one expert scientist versus one denier demonstrates a false balance; to get a genuine balance you would need at least 97 scientists for every three deniers.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12209554&fbclid=IwAR3ne4ekax6idm5b9sda-ZYmmkNHfm2ae-bMaEF0xYyZXkT_cW2SkqiSVsw

    • “…to get a genuine balance you need at least 97 scientists for every three deniers”

      This statement reveals just how corrupted the AGW idea has become. It completely rejects the scientific method. I think the AGW argument is not really about the affect of CO2, it is ultimately about the validity of the scientific method. Faith ( group think) vs science ( reality). Mann etal would probably be very happy living in the age of the inquisition..:)

    • Life on earth hangs in the balance… We face a catastrophe of such proportions that we need to spend tens of trillions of dollars… Skeptics are standing in the way of saving the earth such that we can’t move forward…

      But we’re not going to engage skeptics in a discussion to change people’s minds.

    • One could spin that statement to read that 3 climate ‘deniers’ carry the weight of 97 ‘scientists’.

    • “A debate with one expert scientist versus one denier demonstrates a false balance…”
      proclaimed the Witch Doctor!

      No real scientist would ever say that.

  45. Mann: “We are actually screening all proxies to see if they have a verifiable signal (temperature or precip) against the instrumental record. So we’re trying to use an objective measure”.

    There doesn’t seem anything wrong with this statement because nobody wants to use proxies which cannot be verified against some current, instrumental record. The reason this sentence is highlighted in this article appears to imply that “screening” could mean to verify against any particular expected signal. However that’s not written and would be too dumb to even consider without further evidence. It’s fine to suggest the most unlikely scenario over the more likely one, but it needs more than a random email to show that this unlikely scenario is justified. As you know: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back it up.

  46. Well, they certainly discussed these things…

    JTO-060963

    From: David Rind
    Subject: Re: [Fwd: crosschecks sensitivity and paleo]
    On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, David Rind wrote:

    JTO-060969

    > Hi Gabi,
    >
    > I read through the draft, and for whatever
    > reason, I didn’t really find any questions
    > specifically addressed to me. However, I’ll
    > provide some comments on the sections you’ve
    > sent, and the LGM sensitivity section in
    > particular. In a separate message I’ll highlight
    > for Jonathan and Eystein the various places in
    > this text where it is indicated that a subject
    > has been discussed in chapter 6 – just to make
    > sure that discussion is really still there.
    >
    > Section 9.2
    > Paragraph 1: note that the observed changes have
    > their own uncertainties (and areas with lack of
    > data), which also hinders ‘fingerprint’
    > techniques.
    >
    > Paragraph 2: The additional uncertainty in model
    > simulations not discussed in this paragraph is
    > their climate response time; as this can be a
    > function of climate model sensitivity, the two
    > are conjoined, and can effect the attribution of
    > transient response with respect to the different
    > forcings. [In fact, 9.6.1, at the end of
    > Paragraph 1, seems to indicate the rate of ocean
    > heat uptake was discussed in 9.2., which it does
    > not appear to be.]
    >
    > Section 9.2.1
    > Paragraph 2: I’m not aware of a discussion in
    > Chapter 6 of the variability in paleo
    > reconstructions that is not explained by external
    > forcing – was there something specific you had in
    > mind?
    >
    > Paragraph 3: Again the temporal response is a
    > function of the climate response time (and hence
    > climate sensitivity) in models.
    >
    > Section 9.2.1.3
    > Paragraph 4: I think the solar discussion in this
    > paragraph is out of phase with that in Chapter 2.
    > Here it seems to emphasize that the range of 2.7
    > to 4 W/m**2 between the late 17th century and
    > today is the going one, while there are some
    > smaller ones around. Chapter 2 implies rates on
    JTO-060969
    > the order of 1 W/m**2 are most likely, while
    > there are higher ones around.
    >
    > Paragraph 5: The last sentence gives a mean
    > radiative forcing for the Late Maunder Minimum;
    > note that if one compares that with the
    > temperature reconstructions for this time period,
    > it implies a low climate sensitivity.
    > Subsequently it is noted that the range of
    > possible radiative forcing (and temperature
    > response) is too large to provide a climate
    > sensitivity for this time period (9.6.2.2). While
    > that is not completely inconsistent with what’s
    > written in this paragraph, giving a mean value
    > presents a more solid target than you may want.
    >
    > Section 9.3.2
    >
    > Paragraph 4, as well as 9.3.3: As indicated in a
    > recent paper GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL.
    > 32, L05712, doi:10.1029/2004GL021217, 2005, using
    > all the tropical cooling estimates results in a
    > tropical response of 2.7°C cooling, and a land
    > response of 5.4°C. These are higher numbers than
    > are coming out of the PMIP studies, though the
    > models did not necessarily use all the required
    > forcings (e.g., lacked aerosols). The reality is
    > that there is still considerable uncertainty
    > concerning the tropical reconstructions for the
    > LGM, and what the proper magnitude of cooling
    > actually was. It would be useful if this
    > uncertainty was somehow represented in one of
    > these paragraphs, for without addressing it, we
    > can not improve our estimate of LGM sensitivity
    > even if we knew all the forcings. (Note also that
    > tropical sensitivity is obviously a big issue for
    > the future climate simulations as well, with
    > large differences between models.)
    >
    > Another section affected is 9.6.2.3. In
    > Paragraph 2, the PMIP numbers are stated but they
    > represent low ends of – or below – the
    > temperature estimates given in the above
    > observational paper (and again all the forcings
    > weren’t necessarily used). This should be noted
    > (as it is in Chapter 6). And the uncertainties
    > discussed between the two studies in Paragraphs 3
    > and 4 of this section are partly the result of
    > the poorly constrained SST change during the LGM.
    >
    > (An additional point for these paragraphs: the
    > CLIMBER 2 model uses a parameterized functional
    > water vapor feedback and a one layer cloud model
    > – it’s response to climate change during the LGM
    JTO-060970
    > cannot be tuned the way it can, by comparison
    > with GCMs, for 2CO2 – so there’s no surprise that
    > it would produce a different result from a low
    > resolution GCM.)
    >
    > And in 9.6.3.2, paragraph 2: I would say,
    > For the Last Glacial Maximum, the present
    > uncertainty about tropical temperature changes
    > makes a tight constraint difficult to obtain.
    > [The reality is: if you go with CLIMAP SSTs, you
    > get a global cooling of 3.7°C; if you try to
    > reproduce the tropical land evidence, the cooling
    > is some 6°C, or even higher.]
    >
    >
    > Section 9.3.4
    >
    > Paragraph 1: The simulations suggesting the
    > colder period was the Maunder Minimum are
    > actually NOT in agreement with the record – none
    > of the reconstructions actually show that, with
    > some showing the early 16th century, and the Mann
    > et al record showing the late 19th century was
    > actually colder than the M.M.
    >
    > David

    • Gabi’s response:
      JTO-061010

      “Gabriele Hegerl
      Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
      Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
      Box 90227
      Duke University, Durham NC 27708
      Ph: fax
      email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
      JTO-061010
      From ???@??? Tue Aug 02 22:11:53 2005
      Return-Path:
      Received: from smtpgate.email.arizona.edu (deagol.email.arizona.edu [10.0.0.142])
      by email.arizona.edu (Cyrus v2.1.14) with LMTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:34:26 -0700
      X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
      Received: from localhost (eomer.email.arizona.edu [10.0.0.219])
      by smtpgate.email.arizona.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC40BADD401
      for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:34:26 -0700 (MST)
      Received: from compton.acpub.duke.edu (compton.acpub.duke.edu [152.3.233.74])
      by smtpgate.email.arizona.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FC5AED410
      for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:34:22 -0700 (MST)
      Received: from duke.edu (dhcp-3-112-205.env.duke.edu [152.3.112.205])
      by compton.acpub.duke.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/Duke-5.0.0) with ESMTP id
      j732Y94r001880;
      Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:34:09 -0400 (EDT)
      Message-ID:
      Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:23:47 -0400
      From: Gabi Hegerl
      User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
      Netscape/7.1
      X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
      MIME-Version: 1.0
      To: David Rind
      Cc: francis ,
      Bette Otto-Bliesner , jto@u.arizona.edu,
      eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no
      Subject: Re: [Fwd: crosschecks sensitivity and paleo]
      References:
      In-Reply-To:
      Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
      boundary=”————050804080908070008000306″
      X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at email.arizona.edu
      X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.221 required=7 tests=BAYES_05, HTML_30_40,
      HTML_FONT_SIZE_TINY, HTML_FONT_TINY, HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY,
      RATWR10_MESSID
      X-Spam-Level: x

      Dear David, thanks very much for your comments, and also, for getting
      them to us so rapidly!!
      I have some answers embedded
      JTO-061028

      Gabi

      Section 9.2
      Paragraph 1: note that the observed changes have their own
      uncertainties (and areas with lack of data), which also hinders
      ‘fingerprint’ techniques.

      good point, I added a remark to that effect (fingerprints however
      generally focus only on regions where we
      have data, but errors are a problem).

      Paragraph 2: The additional uncertainty in model simulations not
      discussed in this paragraph is their climate response time; as this
      can be a function of climate model sensitivity, the two are conjoined,
      and can effect the attribution of transient response with respect to
      the different forcings. [In fact, 9.6.1, at the end of Paragraph 1,
      seems to indicate the rate of ocean heat uptake was discussed in 9.2.,
      which it does not appear to be.]

      Rates of heat uptake are given in a table I couldn’t send due to space
      limits on your mailbox, sorry…
      I agree on the sensitivity issue and have changed the text to reflect
      that response does not scale
      exactly linearly with sensitivity

      Section 9.2.1
      Paragraph 2: I’m not aware of a discussion in Chapter 6 of the
      variability in paleo reconstructions that is not explained by external
      forcing – was there something specific you had in mind?

      Maybe just a reference to the 20th century warming being unusual
      relative to the last millennium – do you say
      this? PECK?

      Paragraph 3: Again the temporal response is a function of the
      climate response time (and hence climate sensitivity) in models.

      agree, but I think thats implicitly said (scaling with sensitivity not
      mentioned, only with aerosols)

      JTO-061029

      Section 9.2.1.3
      Paragraph 4: I think the solar discussion in this paragraph is
      out of phase with that in Chapter 2. Here it seems to emphasize that
      the range of 2.7 to 4 W/m**2 between the late 17th century and today
      is the going one, while there are some smaller ones around. Chapter 2
      implies rates on the order of 1 W/m**2 are most likely, while there
      are higher ones around.

       DAVID, this was where I had a question for you: what is “today”? 2000?
      Also, the text on the MM further down right now says radiateive forcing
      -0.12 to -1.56, as opposed to the 2.7
      from Judith before – is the first one the direct measurement from
      satellite and the other one (your numbers)
      taking into account the geometry of the earth?

      Paragraph 5: The last sentence gives a mean radiative forcing
      for
      the Late Maunder Minimum; note that if one compares that with the
      temperature reconstructions for this time period, it implies a low
      climate sensitivity. Subsequently it is noted that the range of
      possible radiative forcing (and temperature response) is too large to
      provide a climate sensitivity for this time period (9.6.2.2). While
      that is not completely inconsistent with what’s written in this
      paragraph, giving a mean value presents a more solid target than you
      may want.

      what would be the best estimate for sensitivity from that? Right now, I
      write suggests a sensitivity on the low
      end of the IPCC range – is that ok? Also, Your writing still uses
      Judith’s estimate, should I use 0.25 now rather
      than 0.5 as in your text?

      Section 9.3.2

      Paragraph 4, as well as 9.3.3: As indicated in a recent
      paper GEOPHYSICAL
      RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32, L05712, doi:10.1029/2004GL021217,
      2005, using all the tropical cooling estimates results in a
      tropical response of 2.7°C cooling, and a land response of 5.4°C.
      These are higher numbers than are coming out of the PMIP studies,
      though the models did not necessarily use all the required forcings
      (e.g., lacked aerosols). The reality is that there is still
      considerable uncertainty concerning the tropical reconstructions for
      JTO-061030
      the LGM, and what the proper magnitude of cooling actually was. It
      would be useful if this uncertainty was somehow represented in one of
      these paragraphs, for without addressing it, we can not improve our
      estimate of LGM sensitivity even if we knew all the forcings. (Note
      also that tropical sensitivity is obviously a big issue for the future
      climate simulations as well, with large differences between
      models.)

      ok – I think though this paragraph comes across as simulations having
      large uncertainties..

              Another
      section affected is 9.6.2.3. In Paragraph 2, the PMIP numbers are
      stated but they represent low ends of – or below – the temperature
      estimates given in the above observational paper (and again all the
      forcings weren’t necessarily used). This should be noted (as it is in
      Chapter 6). And the uncertainties discussed between the two studies in
      Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this section are partly the result of the poorly
      constrained SST change during the LGM.

      The numbers you give are observational? It would be great to put in
      obervational estimates – what range? (I guess
      we don’t have global temp change estimates, so what are they?)
      Added caveat, thanks

      (An additional point for these paragraphs: the CLIMBER 2 model
      uses a parameterized functional water vapor feedback and a one layer
      cloud model – it’s response to climate change during the LGM cannot be
      tuned the way it can, by comparison with GCMs, for 2CO2 – so there’s
      no surprise that it would produce a different result from a low
      resolution GCM.)

              And in
      9.6.3.2, paragraph 2: I would say, For the Last Glacial Maximum, the
      present uncertainty about tropical temperature changes makes a tight
      constraint difficult to obtain. [The reality is: if you go with CLIMAP
      SSTs, you get a global cooling of 3.7°C; if you try to reproduce the
      tropical land evidence, the cooling is some 6°C, or even
      higher.]\

      thanks added!

      JTO-061031

      Section 9.3.4

      Paragraph 1: The simulations suggesting the colder period was
      the
      Maunder Minimum are actually NOT in agreement with the record – none
      of the reconstructions actually show that, with some showing the early
      16th century, and the Mann et al record showing the late 19th century
      was actually colder than the M.M.

      oh, I see. Yes, I changed to one of the coldest periods, since I can
      only see the records right now, but for the models
      would depend on forcing etc anyway.
      tx

      Gabi

  47. “I want to be in agreement with you guys, on the other hand, we have to
    report what studies find…”

    JTO-060994
    Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:00:09 -0400
    From: Gabi Hegerl

    To: Jonathan Overpeck ,
    francis
    Subject: Re: [Fwd: crosschecks sensitivity and paleo]

    Peck,

    Thanks – but I don’t understand where chapter 9 would be going at it
    alone on solar, and whats
    wrong?
    Can I give you a call?
    Where are you?
    I want to be in agreement with you guys, on the other hand, we have to
    report what studies find…
    I did try to do a very balanced job (Pascale drafted that anyway),
    saying the Maunder Minimum could
    be solar (David and crew) or volcanic (my paper, Andronova and the
    japanese paper).
    Is taht what is raising concern???

    Gabi

  48. Resolving differences, so things don’t look bad.

    Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
    Thanks Gabi and David – We will use your list of where 9 refers
    to 6 to check that we have the indicated backup discussion. If it’s
    not there, then chap 9 can delete the ref to chap 6 and we can work on
    it for SOD. Of course, if it’s easy, we’ll do it, but we might be
    beyond the point where we can do something sophisticated – LAs are
    mostly gone, or if still on-line, quite busy. But, we’ll try…

    One thing that could be bad for the FOD is if chapters don’t
    agree on the solar. I think David has it right. If chap 9 wants to go
    JTO-060995
    it alone, then we (Gabi and gang) need to figure out a way to say
    things so that it doesn’t look bad. Not sure if that’s possible…
    David offers an idea – stress that the low radiative forcing estimates
    are now more likely, but that some high ones exist, and they
    indicate…
    Anyhow, glad we’re doing this, and thanks David for doing a
    careful job. Gabi – you have him as a CA, correcto?

    best, peck

  49. Shame on a university withholding (stonewalling) on useful information pertinent for global public policy discourse on a supposedly doomsday issue for all mankind.

  50. It hardly matters what Mann and his associates claim to be true.

    It is not difficult to assemble the existing data, together with the peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies, into a more-than-adequate global warming meta-study.

    There are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, likely all cataloged at co2science.org, and a significant subset of the studies are temperature-based and the investigations were spread around the globe. There are newer confirming MWP studies showing up regularly.

    There are also other kinds of confirming information. For example, the 6,000 boreholes show conclusively that the MWP trend was global. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

    The receding Mendenhall glacier (Alaska) recently exposed a shattered 1,000 year-old forest, still in its original positon. No trees, let alone a forest, have grown at that latitude since then. Ancient vineyards have been found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today. Burial sites have been found below the perma-frost. The Vikings had apparently successfully mapped most of Greenland’s coastline.

    Other silly claims such as claiming that the MWP studies were not “synchronous” can easily be dealt with. Most proponents of anthropogenic global warming refer back into the 1800s when speaking of the current global warming. But, what about the mild cooling during 1945 to 1975? That’s about as un-synchronous as one can get. Not only that, even if the current warming begins in 1975, there are areas which experienced no warming.

    Attempting to refute all the MWP studies cataloged at co2science because the proprietor of that website is Dr. Idso, is downright silly. Idso is merely acting as a librarian (perhaps partly because no alarmist is interested in that data). The studies were (and continue to be) undertaken by the independent efforts of numerous researchers representing dozens of different countries.

    Claiming that Idso has “cherry-picked” the studies he maintains at his site is laughable. The folks making such a claim are actually cherry-picking which peer-reviewed studies confirm their bias.

    The MWP studies may have nothing to say about our current warming, but they rule out the credibility of anyone who attempts to deny that the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer, than it is now.

    The computer models all assume that most of our current warming has been caused by human activity (fossil fuel usage), their actual culprit being water vapor feedback, which they assume causes 2 to 3 times the supposed temperature increase brought on by co2 increase. Their computer models cannot begin to replicate the MWP. There was no co2 increase, hence no water vapor feedback during the MWP. It’s no wonder that they continue to DENY the global, warmer, MWP.

    • A tipping point is a temperature at which positive feedbacks take over and we get runaway global warming. James Hansen has warned us of that for a long time.

      The fact that the global temperature was higher than now during the MWP and warmer than that during the RWP and warmer yet during the Holocene Climate Optimum, means that we don’t have to worry about a tipping point until the global temperature exceeds a couple of degrees over the current value. That’s why ‘they’ desperately tried to erase the MWP … plus, those higher global temperatures were achieved without the aid of anthropogenic CO2. In other words, the current warming is likely natural rather than human caused.

  51. Although I appreciate all of the above comments, in the grand scheme of things I doubt this treasure trove of information means “diddly squat.”

  52. Looking through all the comments, haven’t seen anything as “good” as “hide the decline”.
    Has anyone found anything in all this which could be a smoking gun, – better than the original climate-gate?

    Just askin…

  53. Steve O March 6, 2019 at 6:35 am :

    I’m trying to get my arms around what this group believes regarding the MWP.

    “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

    — Chris Folland.

    They ‘believe in‘ their GHGE models.

    I’m interested in why they ‘believe in’ GHGE equations/models, derived from Arrhenius’ 19th century model. Why is so little in their models verified against the real world? Why do they scorn modern work done on carbon dioxide absorption and emittance spectra (studies: 1985, 2005, 2013, 2014)? Why has no one done an experiment since 1900 (Knut Angstrom, who failed to show it) to verify this GHGE?

    When I tell them their GHGE hypothesis says earth warms because less OLR is emitted to space, they rationalize away real world data showing a 2W/m² increase (4 complete data sets) in OLR emitted to space since 1985. Real world doing the opposite of their models.

    It’s nearly always the same pattern with bad science: cherry pick, model, twist statistics. Actual data fraud is rare. They even think changing past temperatures to delete 1910 – 1940 warming is ‘science’. Much like they think Mann-derived MWP-elimination studies are science. Alarmists are just hacks doing the UN’s bidding; not good scientists. If politicians want anti-scientist alarmists in charge of climate science; all we can do is change the politicians.

    • One of the climate clowns’s main motto :

      If the data don’t fit your theory, fit the data.

    • Speaking of Arrhenius,

      I would also ask, “Why do they believe that Arrhenius’ writings ultimately support their doom narrative?”

      … when on page 63 of …

      Svante Arrhenius, 1908, Das Werden der Welten (Worlds in the making; the evolution of the universe), Academic Publishing House, Leipzig, 208 pages. https://archive.org/details/worldsinmakingev00arrhrich/page/62

      … we find Arrhenius writing:

      We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.

    • A claim that is unsubstantiatable.
      Since we have no thermometry data, we rely upon proxies.
      We have few of those covering the period, with minimal coverage of the globe.
      Their accuracy is firstly disputable & secondly imprecise.

      • If it’s good enough for the IPCC to include it then it must be accurate.

        Tree rings don’t tell porkies.

  54. So just when will Gore,DiCaprio,Laurie(David)Travolta Etc be making any sacrifices in their lifestyles and go live in a Grass Hut the answer is NEVER these privalged little brats will never give up their pampered lifestyles

  55. Mann live on TWC….CA forest fires and winter weather due to…wait for it…..Climate Change!!! He said “We think… fires are due to CC” He offered no proof.

    • The mann is a fraud. Anyone hosting him for anything, never mind a broadcaster of any repute is an idiot.

  56. The craziest thing here is that anyone would take seriously the notion that looking at tree rings, and pine cones, to ‘measure’ temperatures from hundreds of years ago, with a resolution of tenths of a degree C.

  57. I enjoyed the comments here. Let me add two.

    1. Concerning Bill Nye and his fake experiment “proving” CO2 causes global warming. It was totally disproved and the story was displayed in wattsupwiththat.com. He should now be called “Bill Nye the LYIN’ guy”

    2. ALL of us concerned with the rollback of the scientific method to the days of Gallileo; the attempt to silence all critics of AGW and the call for imprisonment of same critics based on fraudulent data and outright lies should do more to fight back against those frauds like mann, nye, gore, ocasio-cortez, etc.

Comments are closed.