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)
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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
A ne hockey stick to please the Guardian: rapidly increasing ocean ‘heatwaves’. I haven’t studied the original paper yet, so perhaps its plausible?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/04/heatwaves-sweeping-oceans-like-wildfires-scientists-reveal
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:
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.
All over Australian MSM at the moment. Election year!!!
Looks like Google and friends will try to block these PDFs and emails, But they will fail . . . Maybe even try to block this website. . . lol.
They do it every day—-Can’t Access This Page—requiring a fix to access.
Never happens to me. You’ve got something else going on.
Iused to get regular emails of wattsupwiththat. Suddenly they stopped coming. Please reinstate me as a recipient.
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.
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.
We haven’t been asked to review the paper. Therefore it is rubbish.
Such arrogance.
Especially when their own “pal reviewed” stuff is such rubbish…
“Also, the degree of smoothing and the y-scale used can easily determine the takeaway message.”
http://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/E-E.-Overpeck-email-records-released-to-E-E-2-5-19-per-court-order-00114885xC3E11.pdf
“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!
One of his backers, the CBC, trying to smooth things over.
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
In climategate mails Mann says he doesnt trust Revkin.
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.
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!
Since this can all be considered “Political Science” now, vote republican.
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.
FYI, I’m reading all ~5,000 pages and tweeting about my findings at Twitter hashtag #MannEmail https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%23mannemail&src=typd
Thanks, Tom. I’m checking back regularly at that Twitter account.
Regards,
Bob
good on you Tom, after climategate 1,2,3 I’ve had enough
reading them all is the only way. all or nothing
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.
+1
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.
Did Mann ever provide a response to the McIntyre and McKittrick paper that describe it as “crap” and “stunt”?
Correction:
..”that did not describe”…
Yes …..
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E11
Wasn’t much of a refutation, IMHO.
No it wasn’t…not even close.
But it was a “response.”
See – he ‘responded’ – therefore he can move on. No need to look any further.
Anthony Barton, thanks for the link. I laughed out loud when I read the response. It’s classic Michael Mann! A perfect illustration of the old saying “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bullsh!t.
Thank you, Anthony Banton, for confirming that Mann’s only “response” was not responsive.
Hokey stick.
Off topic but a good read:
POMPOUS LITTLE TWIT’: Greenpeace Co-Founder Unloads On Ocasio-Cortez.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/44167/pompous-little-twit-greenpace-co-founder-unloads-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=030419-news&utm_campaign=position1
I misread it the first time. Just to be real clear, “POMPOUS LITTLE TWIT” refers to AOC.
You mean, Chiquita Khrushchev?
Not bad, but a bit sexist for my taste.
Much prefer She Guevara…
“Occasional Cortex” is probably still my favorite, but “Chiquita Khruschev” and “She Guevara” are giving me the smirks too.
Keep ’em coming! 😀
FIDELLA Alexandria Ocasio Cortez-DOLT CASTRO
I thought it was obvious to all?
LMFAO. I have to compile a list of “alternate” names for her, they are so apropos AND make me crack up!
Before she knows where she is, she’s somewhere else.
H/t Hector Munro.
=================
Absence Of Cognizance?
Also note the inside emails between climate alarmists per Horner’s work here: https://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Horner-response-Redacted-2-2010-copy-2.pdf
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.)
Good idea
[snip – Doug Cotton and his cottonball physics – Anthony]
“Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.”
Is there another access?
JPP
Thanks Anthony !!!
I miss his ramblings sometimes. Even though I failed college physics, I like being able to look down on someone who clearly knows even less 😉
Yes now more
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
Thank you, Sir.
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.
Didn’t someone, during a Senate hearing, say he got an Email from someone saying ” We must do away way with MWP”?
David Deming, IIRC