«Edited and Annotated by John Costella The Lavoisier Group March 2010 About the Author John Costella was born in East Melbourne in 1966. After being ...»
June 27, 2005: email 1119924849 Jonathan Overpeck writes again to Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn, and Eystein Jansen, over
the brewing storm:
The recent Wall Street Journal editorial that is creating all the crap in the United States actually showed a graph from the IPCC First Assessment Report—if you don’t have it, or Eystein can’t send it, I can scan it in (my Republican Dad sends me these things, although he’s an increasingly rare breed of moderate Republican). My thought is that it might be worth adding a couple lines of text documenting how the IPCC view of the Medieval Warm Period changed with each of its Assessment Reports and new knowledge. In doing so, it could be made very clear that there is a reason that scientists don’t show those old graphs anymore. We need to move the debate beyond the IPCC’s First Assessment Report, Second Assessment Report, and Third Assessment Report on this issue!
In other words, these scientists themselves have discredited their own IPCC claims;
their only problem is achieving their revision of history—even to the point of “moving beyond” their most recent IPCC Report!
June 28, 2005: email 1119957715 A Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives is investigating Mike
Mann’s scientific claims. Mann writes:
This was predicted—they’re of course trying to make things impossible for me. I need immediate help regarding recourse for free legal advice, etc.
Michael Oppenheimer responds:
This is outrageous. I’ll contact some people who may be able to help right away.
Tom Wigley responds:
I would not advise a legal route. I think you need to consider this as just another set of referees’ comments and respond simply, clearly and directly.
In contrast to Mann and Oppenheimer, Wigley obviously believes, at this point in time,
that Mann has nothing to hide. Rather, he thinks it is a politically based campaign:
Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism of you personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global warming science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives.
However, his true colours quickly shine through: this is an opportunity to weed out
those who are not “on the team”:
There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor level. The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the antigreenhouse view. Recent papers in Geophysical Research Letters (including the McIntyre and McKitrick paper) have clearly not been reviewed by appropriate people. We have a strong suspicion that this is the case, but, of course, no proof because we do not know who the reviewers of these papers have been. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation and request (or demand) that this information be made available. In order to properly defend the good science it is essential that the reasons for bad science appearing in the literature be investigated.
We need not wonder from which ranks the “appropriate people” should be chosen.
Further on, Wigley uses a curiously appropriate turn of phrase:
The others who could be added to this email list at this early stage are Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, your “co-conspirators”—and perhaps Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn.
Well, that answers the question of whether it is fair to call them “(co-) conspirators”:
it is their own term!
One would imagine that Wigley would suggest that Mann use these other colleagues
to support his scientific claims. But the reality is the exact opposite:
A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleoclimatology … work as supporting your work. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other results. Although these all show the “hockey stick” shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleoclimatology results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.
And that is the final nail in the coffin of one of the greatest scientific frauds in the history of mankind: Wigley has demonstrated that all of the temperature estimates for before 1850—the period needed to show that the warming is “unprecedented”—are so discrepant as to be inconclusive.
Mike Mann, as always, is concerned about himself:
Thanks—yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States.
Fortunately, we have some good people who will represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case scenario, this backfires on these thugs… The response of the wording is likely to change dramatically after consultation with lawyers … It is remarkable that Mann ignores completely Wigley’s dire warnings that his results are wrong; his only concern is obtaining free legal advice to ensure that he does not
have to testify before Congress. We note that he is now drawing in his co-conspirators:
his terminology has shifted from “me” to “us”.
June 28, 2005: email 1120014836
Jonathan Overpeck indicts his own IPCC co-authors:
Also, please note that, in the United States, … Congress is questioning whether it is ethical for IPCC authors to be using the IPCC to champion their own work and opinions. Obviously, this questioning is wrong and scary, but if our goal is to get policy-makers (liberal and conservative alike) to take our Chapter of the IPCC Report seriously, it will only hurt our effort if we cite too many of our own papers (perception is often reality).
Please do not cite anything that is not absolutely needed, and please do not cite your own papers unless they are absolutely needed. This is common sense, but it isn’t happening. Please be more critical with your citations so we save needed space, and also so we don’t get perceived as self-serving, or worse. Again, we can debate this if anyone thinks I’ve gone off the deep end.
Overpeck is absolutely correct; to even feel the need to make these comments to his co-authors is noteworthy. That he thinks his co-authors may believe him to have “gone
off the deep end” is surprising—yet Eystein Jansen does disagree:
Having the fortune of not being that close to the darker sides of United States politics, I have the feeling that Peck’s comment concerning referencing perhaps is a bit too “paranoic”.
July 5, 2005: email 1120593115
Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy:
This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
Again, Jones’s ability to concisely summarize the key facets of this scandal is admirable.
That this leader is scared of his own “scientific community”—to the point of his not being allowed to state something publicly which he acknowledges is actually true, is telling. Could you imagine how intimidated the more junior scientists would be?
It is also extremely telling that Jones excuses his silence on the grounds of statistical insignificance only for facts, such as these, that go against the “relentless warming” message. In fact, his own colleagues have shown that all of their temperature estimates lack statistical significance. The correct course of action would be to be silent.
Later in the same email:
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
So Jones would prefer catastrophic global warming actually to occur, just so that he could bask in the accolades of being “proved” right! Ignoring the fact that catastrophic global warming—if it occurred—would not prove whether mankind’s liberation of carbon dioxide was a causative factor at all, Jones’s “ego trip” death-wish offers us yet another insight into his character.
July 6, 2005: email 1120676865 Neville Nicholls, of the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne,
Australia, asks Phil Jones:
Do you expect to get a call from Congress?
I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a United States Department of Energy grant, and have had this (with Tom Wigley) for the last 25 years.
The fact that Jones received these grant moneys from a foreign government department is not an issue; it is a normal and healthy part of scientific research. What is astounding is his hiding of the fact. It is standard scientific practice to acknowledge all sources of funding, however indirect. For example, in the Acknowledgments section of a paper that my PhD supervisor and I had published in the International Journal of Modern
Physics in 1992, we include the following sentence:
We warmly thank the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and the United States Department of Energy Grant #DOE/ER40561 for partial support during the completion of this work.
This is absolutely standard practice—and the Department of Energy Grant acknowledged here was not even funding us directly, but rather the Institute for Nuclear Theory itself, which hosted both of us for some months in early 1992. That Jones not only did not acknowledge his sources of public funding, but moreover hoped that he could keep the fact hidden to avoid proper scrutiny by the United States Congress, is another black mark on his record.
July 25, 2005: email 1122300990
Tom Crowley to Jonathan Overpeck, Keith Briffa, and Eystein Jansen:
Hi all, there is another reason why I should not be formally listed as a Lead Author—it is my understanding that IPCC contributors have to be a little careful about getting involved in political matters that could be used to impugn the integrity of the process—well, I am starting to do just that, with the attached comment in Eos, plus some radio interviews where I have been somewhat pointed in my thoughts.
I suppose it’s still OK to be a reviewer, but even then you might keep these comments in mind.
Crowley’s realization, and offer to recuse himself, is admirable. It is a pity that more of his colleagues did not share his sense of integrity and impartiality.
July 26, 2005: email 1122422429
Tim Osborn writes to Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, and Eystein Jansen:
As you’ll have seen from Tom Crowley’s replies to my fairly direct requests for the data that went into his Medieval Warm Period graph, he seems somehow reluctant to send it to me and prefers me to find it myself (including spending a week re-assembling a Mongolian data set). I have no time to do this, so have instead reverted to using the very similar data that we already had.
It is astounding that even Crowley’s own colleagues were rebuffed in their requests for the data that went into this important graph, and basically told to “figure it out yourself ”.
It is therefore not surprising that independent auditors were met by outright hostility!
August 4, 2005: email 1123163394 Phil Jones and Mike Mann again demonstrate their real forte: intelligence gathering.
If you’ve not gone to China yet—you’ll meet someone called Martin Dukes (?). He’s giving a talk at your session. He knows about mathematics, etc., but not much about paleoclimatology! He might need some education, but is probably OK. I have not met him, but Tim has. He is doing some worked funded by the Dutch government on the “hockey stick” graph.