«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 ...»
This is all getting quite complex. It clearly isn’t something that should be discussed online on our website—at least till we know all the detail and have got the history right as best we can. A lot of this history is likely best left buried, but I hope to summarise enough to avoid all the skeptics wanting copies of these non-mainstream papers. Finding them in the CRU may be difficult!
As for who put the graph in the IPCC Reports—I think I know who did it. Chris may be ignorant of the subject, but I think all he did was use the Department of Energy graph. This is likely bad enough.
I don’t think it is going to help getting the real culprit to admit putting it together, so I reckon Chris is going to get the blame. I have a long email from him—just arrived. Just read that and he seems to changing his story from last December, but I still think he just used the diagram. Something else happened on Friday—that I think put me onto a different track. This is all like a mystery whodunit.
It is strange that there are no records of who wrote the relevant part of the IPCC 1990 Report and put in the graph. Never mind—Chris Folland will be blamed anyway.
This oft-cited graph from the 1991 IPCC First Assessment Report may be the result of intuition on the part of Hubert Lamb and written historical accounts from the past rather than solid scientific evidence, but it stands up much better today than Mann’s Hockey Stick.
February 5, 2007: email 1170724434 Mike Mann to Curt Covey and many others, regarding Covey sending him an email exchange with leading skeptics Professor Fred Singer and Viscount Monckton of
Benchley regarding the latest IPCC Report:
Curt, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What on earth are you thinking? … You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts of charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage.
Shame on you for such irresponsible behavior!
Mann is showing who is the leader.
March 8, 2007: email 1173420319
Piers Forster to Eystein Jansen, Ken Denman, and others:
Also please could people approve the attachment of their name to such a letter. Non-highlighted names are people who appear to have already given approval for their name to be used. If you are a yellow highlighted name I think you are likely (or very likely) to sign!
If we could have a relaxed attitude and sign a letter that is still in the process of being drafted it would save someone (me) a bunch of work at the end collecting approvals.
Yes, much easier not having to go through the inconvenience of actually reading what you’re signing!
April 21, 2007: email 1177158252 Doug Keenan questions a paper of Phil Jones and Wei-Chyung Wang from 1990. Phil
Jones writes to Kevin Trenberth, Mike Mann, and Ben Santer:
It is all malicious. I’ve cc’d this to Ben and Mike as well, to get any thoughts from their experiences.
If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as well, but I’m talking to some people at the University of East Anglia first. … … All the language is about me not being able to send them the … data … (as used in 1990!). I don’t have this information, as we have much more data now (much more in Australia and China than then) and probably more stations in western USSR … as well.
As for the other request, I don’t have the information on the sources of all the sites used in the …database. We are adding in new data sets regularly (all of New Zealand from Jim Renwick recently), but we don’t keep a source code for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and only a few sites have single sources. I know things roughly by country and could reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
The Global Historical Climatology Network and the National Center for Atmospheric Research don’t have source codes either. It does all come from the National Meteorological Services—well mostly, but some from scientists.
… the Keenan letter knocked me back a bit. I seem to be the marked man now!
In other words, the raw data was never properly documented at all, and in any case is now gone.
This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for one thing they can harp on, where people with little knowledge of the facts might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can’t take on the whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say is wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised.
That is how science is done: claims are analysed, one by one.
So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by feeding the fire. The best thing to do is to ignore them completely. They no longer have their friends in power here in the United States, and the media has become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians, at least in the United States—the Wall Street Journal editorial page is about the only place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much tougher in the States).
In other words, forget about defending the science—use legal bullying tactics instead.
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don’t think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys as lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter-rhetoric. Labelling them as lazy with nothing better to do seems like a good thing to do.
In other words, only the people who constructed the adjusted data sets should have the right to see them; everyone else should obtain their own data!
How about “I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper, but I was unable because he doesn’t have such a paper because he has not done any constructive work!” There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan’s message. One may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if it claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental data are like paleoclimatology data, and can only be used with caution as information about the data does not exist. It doesn’t mean they are worthless and cannot be used. Offering to make a correction to a few words in a paper in a trivial manner will undermine his case.
Again, the old data was so poorly documented that no information about what it refers to survives.
April 25, 2007: email 1177534709
Phil Jones to Ben Santer, regarding the data that Keenan wishes to see:
Possibly I’ll get the raw data from the Global Historical Climatology Network and do some work to replace our adjusted data with these, then make the Raw data (i.e. as transmitted by the National Meteorological Services). This will annoy them more, so may inflame the situation.
Again, Jones does not have the raw data, only his adjusted data, and is looking for ways of reconstructing the raw data from other sources.
I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.
June 19, 2007: email 1177890796
Keith Briffa writes to Mike Mann, about the latest IPCC Report:
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties.
Such is Mann’s overbearing and intolerant demeanour, that Briffa feels the need to apologize for actually examining the uncertainties in a scientific manner!
June 19, 2007: email 1182255717
Wei-Chyung Wang to Doug Keenan, regarding the missing data:
Ms. Zeng told me when I was in Beijing in April 2007 that she no longer has … access to this data because it has been a long time (since 1990) and also because the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has moved office. But if you are interested, you can make an inquiry to the China Meteorological Administration … More run-around—more missing data.
Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang and Tom Karl:
1. I think I’ve managed to persuade the University of East Anglia to ignore all further Freedom Of Information Act requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. I had an email from David Jones of the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with Climate Audit, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
Freedom of Information evasion has begun in earnest, particularly as it pertains to Doug Keenan and Steve McIntyre.
June 20, 2007: email 1182342470
Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang and Tom Karl:
I won’t be replying to either of the emails below from Doug Keenan and Steve McIntyre, nor to any of the accusations on the Climate Audit website.
I’ve sent them on to someone here at the University of East Anglia to see if we should be discussing anything with our legal staff.
The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me, and somehow split up the original author team.
I do now wish I’d never sent them the data after their Freedom Of Information Act request!
Phil Jones to Tom Peterson:
There are a few interesting comments on the Climate Audit web site. One says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct, not for Keenan to prove we’re wrong. Interesting logic.
No, it’s scientific integrity.
June 20, 2007: email 1182346299
Kevin Trenberth to Phil Jones:
It is nasty. It is also very inappropriate. Even were some problems to emerge over time, those should be addressed in a new paper by these guys.
Unfortunately all they do is criticise.
Oh, no—not criticism!
June 20, 2007: email 1182361058
Eugene Wahl writes to Phil Jones, unable to bear the pressure of independent scrutiny:
I was wondering if there is any way we as the scientific community can seek some kind of “cease and desist” action with these people. They are making all kinds of claims, all over the community, and we act in relatively disempowered ways. Note that the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research did send the response letter to the presidents of the two academic institutions with which McIntyre and McKitrick are associated, although this seems to have had no impact. Seeking the help of the attorneys you speak about would be useful, I should think. I know that Mike has said he looked into slander action with the attorneys with whom he spoke, but they said it is hard to do since Mike is, in effect, a “public” person—and to do so would take a lot of his time (assuming that the legal time could somehow be supported financially). If I might ask, if you do get legal advice, could you inquire into the possibility of acting proactively in response via the British system? Maybe the “public” person situation does not hold there, or less so. I only ask you to consider this question on my part; obviously, please do what you deem best for your situation.
August 29, 2007: email 1188412866 Benny Peiser, guest editor of Energy and Environment, sends a copy of the Keenan paper alleging the scientific fraud of Wei-Chyung Wang to Phil Jones for review. Jones