«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 ...»
Thanks, yes I’m in China now. … Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working with Stott and co-workers, and so I assumed that he was legitimate, and not associated with the contrarians. But if he’s associated with the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have additional information about him and what he has been up to?
He’s been working with Myles Allen. Tim went to the first meeting of this Dutch-funded project near Oxford last week.
Tim said they were doing some odd things … The meeting wasn’t that productive, according to Tim. There was a belief amongst those there that all the trees you used have lost their low-frequency information (the information needed to estimate long-term trends). … Tim got the impression that they wanted to find that Mann, Bradley, and Hughes (the “hockey stick” paper) is wrong. … Martin isn’t associated with the contrarians, but he’s not in possession of … all the facts.
Thanks for the heads-up (warning). I will be prepared for this, then. I thought that Gabi Hegerl was involved with this guy? Doesn’t she know better? It is disturbing that she hasn’t set them straight on this.
Gabi was supposed to be there, but wasn’t either. I think Gabi isn’t being as objective as she might, because of Tom Crowley. … What more needs to be said?
Jones now makes a remarkable comment, about something that is elementary even to
high-school science experiments:
There is an issue coming up in the IPCC. Every graph needs uncertainty bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they are right or how they are used.
In other words, he is only concerned that they give the appearance of estimating the uncertainties in their predictions, rather than actually getting those (subtle and difficult) vital calculations right.
August 5, 2005: email 1123268256 Jonathan Overpeck writes to Tim Osborn, Eystein Jansen, Keith Briffa, and Oyvind
Paasche, regarding increasing problems around the Medieval Warm Period:
I hope you’re not going to kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon today, and she impressed me with the need to make several points if we can.
One issue … is whether we can extend the Medieval Warm Period graph to include the 15th century. I don’t read the blogs that regularly, but I guess the skeptics are making hay of there being a global warm event around
1450. I agree with Susan that it is our obligation to weigh in on issues like this, so… can we extend the graph to extend up to 1500?
August 8, 2005: email 1123513957
Tim Osborn responds to Jonathan Overpeck:
There is a period around 1400 when the temperature proxy records we’ve used in this Medieval Warm Period graph do indicate a warm period—and all records show higher temperatures at the same time. Thus it couldn’t/ shouldn’t be dismissed in the same way as the Medieval Warm Period… That the goal should be to “dismiss” anything is in itself disturbing. However,
Overpeck’s response is astounding:
This means that the Medieval Warm Period graph needs to talk about the period around 1400—can you make sure that’s on Keith’s radar screen.
I believe that historians talk about the Medieval Period going to at least 1450, so what the heck… One would have thought that, for these scientists to “dismiss” the Medieval Warm Period, their knowledge of it should have been encyclopaedic (but not, of course, wikipedic). Instead, they are being educated by their critics—even resorting to the historian’s definition of “Medieval” to limit the scope of their investigations.
We get the picture of a group of scientists running around putting out fires, rather than performing a careful, comprehensive investigation before making their public pronouncements.
August 25, 2005: email 1124994521
Mike Mann writes to Christoph Kull, Phil Jones, Heinz Wanner, and others:
In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (with question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress.
Phil Jones to Christoph Kull:
I agree with Mike that the last two names on the list should be removed.
Debate and disagreement is crucial to the healthy functioning of science. Weeding out those who may prevent a predetermined “consensus” is abhorrent.
August 26, 2005: email 1125067952
Heinz Wanner to Christoph Kull:
Concerning the participants:
- If Phil and Mike do not support von Storch it does not make sense to invite him (or Eduardo Zorita?).
Mike Mann concurs:
I’m afraid I don’t agree on Zorita. He has engaged in some very nasty, and in my opinion unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues of mine who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he co-published with von Storch. Given this, I don’t believe he can be involved in constructive dialogue of the sort we’re looking for at this workshop.
Again, a “constructive” dialogue appears to be one that leads to their predetermined “consensus”.
There are some similarly problematic issues with Cubasch, who, like von Storch, … has engaged in inflammatory and personal public commentary.
There is no room for that on any side of the debate.
If the Germans need to be represented here, I would suggest instead someone from the Potsdam group, such as Eva Bauer … Our attention is here drawn to an undercurrent in this entire saga: the need to give the perception of international agreement—which translates into the notion of the need for a “quota” of representation from the key countries involved, rather than true international debate.
September 19, 2005: email 1127614205
Steve McIntyre to the IPCC Working Group I:
For the unpublished articles referenced in the draft IPCC Working Group I Report, could you also provide locations of download sites where the underlying data may be reviewed.
In a follow-up email:
I have been unable to locate supplementary information or data archives for several of the articles posted … and would appreciate assistance in this regard.
Martin Manning to Jonathan Overpeck and Eystein Jansen:
Following the release of the first draft of the Report we have had a response from Steve McIntyre (a name that should ring a bell) regarding unpublished literature in our Chapter. He also asks about access to data sets but that is not an IPCC function so is easily dealt with.
Again, a technicality to “hide behind”.
I am attaching the correspondence with McIntyre below for your information, but the only issues you need to consider are those above, and we will handle any further interactions with McIntyre from here.
In other words, McIntyre will be “handled”, obviating the need for the scientists who authored the papers to deal with him.
September 27, 2005: email 1128000000
Steve McIntyre writes to Colin O’Dowd, Editor of Journal of Geophysical Research:
Dear Dr O’Dowd, I am a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report … and am writing in respect to a submission to your journal by D’Arrigo and co-workers … This article was referenced in Chapter 6 of the Draft Report and made available to IPCC reviewers. In the course of my review, I contacted the senior author, Dr. D’Arrigo, for the download location of the data used in this article, or for alternative access to the data. Dr. D’Arrigo categorically refused, and I was referred to the journal editor if I desired recourse.
Data Citation and Archiving I point out that American Geophysical Union (AGU) policies for data citation and data archiving (provides link) specifically require that authors provide data citation according to AGU standards, and require that contributors archive data in permanent archives, such as the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology.
… In cases where the data has been archived, it has not been cited according to AGU policies. … In order that this submission comply with AGU policies on data archiving, I request that you require D’Arrigo and co-workers do (1) provide accurate data citations complying with AGU policies for all data sets presently archived at the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology; (2) archive all “grey” data used in the article.
A reasonable request, one would think?
Rob Wilson forwards the request to Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa:
Please see the e-mail (attached) from Steve McIntyre to the Editor of the Journal of Geophysical Research. This seems a major abuse of his position as reviewer for the IPCC?
Tim Osborn replies to Rob Wilson and Keith Briffa, including Rosanne D’Arrigo in
I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as an IPCC reviewer!
The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I think there’s no need for the data you used to be publicly available until the paper is actually published … In other words, they should be able to use the pending publication in their IPCC Chapter, but at the same time block McIntyre’s ability to review the paper on the technicality that it has not actually been published at the time that he wishes to review it! This is a remarkably duplicitous tactic.
Osborn finishes with a call to round up the troops:
I will take this issue up with the Chapter Lead Authors and the Working Group 1 technical support unit—unless you prefer that I didn’t. Please let me know.
Osborn then keeps the process rolling, writing to Phil Jones, Eystein Jansen, Jonathan
Overpeck, and Keith Briffa:
Dear Phil, Eystein and Peck, I’ve already talked about this to Phil and Keith, but for Eystein’s and Peck’s benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre downloading a copy of a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleoclimatology chapter … Rosanne replied to my email below, to say that they do want this taken further. So… Phil has agreed to forward these messages to Susan Solomon and Michael Manning.
Eystein and Peck: do you want to add anything too?
It almost goes without saying that actually providing McIntyre with the data would take far less collective effort than this rearguard action.
November 15, 2005: email 1132094873
Mike Mann writes to Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, and Keith Briffa:
I’m not sure if you guys are aware: McIntyre presented this poster at the Climate Change Science Program meeting. Apparently, they gave him a very prominent location, so that everyone entering the meeting would have seen the poster… Even a poster at a conference is enough to get the intelligence chatter going!
Tim Osborn replies:
Thanks for this, Mike. We’d spotted an earlier draft of his poster and were a bit concerned about this receiving prominence at the meeting. Did it arouse much discussion, do you know?
He almost had a point with a mathematical issue, but as we all know, that doesn’t matter at all in the end. The issue isn’t whether or not he’s right, as we all well know by now, but whether his false assertions have enough superficial plausibility to get traction. In this case, they might, so it’s probably good to at least be prepared.
It is astounding to see Mann acknowledging that McIntyre’s criticisms of their mathematical methods are correct, and nevertheless believing that it doesn’t really matter to the “big picture”. This is a common theme: it doesn’t matter if each and every piece of evidence is systematically shown to be flawed; all that matters is that the “proponents” can jump to a new claim to justify their predetermined conclusions.
That mode of operation is as false in science as it is in the law.