«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 ...»
The problem! The person who said they would leave it to the editor’s discretion is on your email list! I don’t know who it is—Tim does—maybe they have told you? I don’t want to put pressure on Tim. He doesn’t know I’m sending this. The second reviewer isn’t me, by the way—nor Tim! Tim said it was someone who hasn’t contributed to the discussion—which does narrow the possibilities down!
This is a deplorable corruption of the peer-review system; “peer group pressure” is a more accurate term.
March 26, 2008: email 1206549942Mike Mann writes to Chris Folland, Phil Jones, and Tom Karl:
Just wanted to give you a heads-up (warning) on something. Have you seen this?
(link to graphic on the Met(eorological) Office site) Apparently the contrarians are having a field day with this graph. My understanding that it is based on using only January and February 2008 and padding (filling the remaining values) with that final value.
Surely this can’t be?? Is (skeptic) Fred Singer now running the United Kingdom Met(eorological)Office website?
I would appreciate any info you can provide.
David Parker of the United Kingdom Met(eorological) Office responds, including
John Kennedy on the cc list:
Yes, it was based on only January and February 2008 and padding with that final value, but John Kennedy has changed / shortly will change this misleading plot!
This episode will be continued shortly.
March 27, 2008: email 1206628118 We are now at the point where Climategate starts to get slightly self-referential: the noose is tightening, and the main characters begin to worry about past actions, statements, and emails.
In this episode, Jonathan Overpeck has been sent an email about a quote attributed to him “getting rid” of the Medieval Warm Period. Overpeck writes to his colleagues for
advice. Phil Jones responds, copying in Mike Mann, and Susan Solomon:
The person who sent you this is likely far worse. This is David Holland.
He is a United Kingdom citizen who send countless letters to his Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, writes in Energy and Environment about the biased IPCC, and has also been hassling John Mitchell about his role as Review Editor for Chapter 6 of the IPCC Report. You might want to talk to John about how he’s responding. Holland has been making requests under our Freedom Of Information Act about the letters Review Editors sent when signing off. I’m sure Susan is aware of this. He’s also made requests for similar letters regarding Working Group 2, and maybe Working Group 3. Keith has been in contact with John about this.
It is good to see Jones hard at work gathering intelligence! But it is a pity he didn’t take as much effort documenting his data as he did his opponents.
April 2, 2008: email 1207158227 Chris Folland of the UK Met(eorological) Office writes to Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Karl, and Richard Reynolds, regarding the incorrect temperature graph on the
Met(eorological) Office website:
First, thanks very much, Mike, for noticing this and preventing greater problems. The error arose from a pre-existing hidden software bug that the person updating the data had not realised was there. The software is a mixture of languages which makes it less than transparent. The bug is now fixed on all the smoothed graphs. It was made worse because the last point was not an average of several preceding years as it should have been but was just January 2008. So many apologies for any excitement this may have created in the hearts of the more ardent skeptics. Some are much on the warpath at present over the lack of recent global warming, fired in some cases by visions of a new solar Dalton Minimum.
It is remarkable that, as recently as 2008, the Met(eorological) Office’s quality management processes are in the same parlous state as that of the researchers—their computer programs a mess of different languages, full of bugs and hacks.
May 9, 2008: email 1210341221
Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, and Caspar Ammann:
A couple of things—don’t pass on either.
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in Freedom Of Information requests for all the emails that Keith and Tim have written and received regarding Chapter 6 of the IPCC Report. We think we’ve found a way around this.
Intelligence work again—and yet something else to “hide behind”!
But wait—am I being too melodramatic? Let’s see how Jones ends his email:
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
No, Jones understands precisely what he is doing.
May 21, 2008: email 1211462932 Mike Mann continues in his quest to control all publications that relate to climate
science. He writes to Phil Jones:
Gavin and I have been discussing: we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson and co-workers paper as soon as it appears, since it’s likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance copy? We promise to fully respect Nature’s embargo (i.e., we wouldn’t post any article until the paper goes public), and we don’t expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized.
Thanks in advance for any help!
May 27, 2008: email 1211911286 David Douglass, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, makes a reasonable
request to Ben Santer:
In a recent paper by Peter Thorne in Nature Geoscience he references a paper that you and he (and others) have written.
I cannot understand some parts of the Thorne paper without reading the Santer and Thorne reference.
Would you please send me a copy?
Santer’s reply introduces his astounding arrogance and pettiness:
I assume that you are referring to the Santer and co-workers paper which has been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology (IJoc).
Despite your claims to the contrary, the Santer and co-workers IJoC paper is not essential reading material in order to understand the arguments advanced by Peter Thorne (in his “News and Views” piece on the Allen and Sherwood Nature Geosciences article).
I note that you did not have the professional courtesy to provide me with any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper, which was basically a commentary on previously-published work by myself and my colleagues.
Neither I nor any of the authors of those previously-published works (the 2005 Santer and co-workers Science paper and the 2006 Karl and coworkers Climate Change Science Program Report) had the opportunity to review your 2007 IJoC paper prior to its publication—presumably because you specifically requested that we should be excluded from consideration as possible reviewers.
I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy of my IJoC paper. Collegiality is not a one-way street, Professor Douglass.
May 27, 2008: email 1211924186
Tim Osborn writes to Casper Ammann, copying in Keith Briffa and Phil Jones:
Our university has received a request, under the United Kingdom Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process.
We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent.
However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential.
Sorry to bother you with this.
Osborn’s tactics in evading the Freedom of Information request are multi-layered.
Firstly, he is hoping that the University of East Anglia will block the request outright.
Secondly, he is giving an invitation to Ammann to declare that any emails that he did send did not relate to the IPCC process. Thirdly, he is hopeful that any emails not covered by such a denial were not “retained” (demonstrating his naivety with regard to email archiving processes). Fourthly, he is inviting Ammann to declare any emails that slip through the first three filters to be “confidential”, which he is obviously hoping will be a sufficient excuse to prevent them from being released.
Oh man! Will this crap ever end?
Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance digging through emails. I don’t recall from the top of my head any specifics about IPCC.
I’m also sorry that you guys have to go through this bullshit.
We will come to Osborn’s response to this email shortly.
May 27, 2008: email 1212009215 Related to the above email exchange is the following email from the University of East Anglia’s Dave Palmer (a librarian allocated to dealing with Freedom of Information requests) to Phil Jones, Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, and Michael McGarvie and which
clearly precedes Osborn’s email to Ammann:
Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland regarding his Freedom of Information request. Could you provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence with us to be confidential?
Palmer now raises what the others would see as a potential loophole:
Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and ask him to limit it … (lists guidelines) In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a way as to bring it within the appropriate limit … In other words, it is not a loophole: they must do everything in their power to assist Holland to adjust his request to fall within the allowable limits.
Palmer clearly understands the gravity of the situation:
I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible “by the book” in this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with the statutory potential to end up with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Tim Osborn begins the process of “divide and conquer”:
These follow-up questions appear directed more towards Keith than to me.
But Keith may be unavailable for a few days due to family illness, so I’ll attempt a brief response in case Keith doesn’t get a chance to.
Items (1) and (2) concern requests that were made by the IPCC Technical Support Unit (hosted by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in the United States) and any responses would have been sent direct to the IPCC Technical Support Unit, to the email address specified in the quote included in item (2). These requests are, therefore, irrelevant to the University of East Anglia.
So they can handball this one to the IPCC. (We will see shortly why this is a cunning tactic.) Item (3): we’ll send the same enquiry to Ammann as we sent to our other colleagues, and let you know his response.
This prompted the email discussed above.
Item (3) also asks for emails from “the journal Climatic Change that discuss any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process”. I can confirm that I have not received any such emails or other documents. I expect that a similar answer will hold for Keith, since I cannot imagine that the editor of a journal would be contacting us about the IPCC process.
Osborn here believes that simply asserting that none of the communications relate to the IPCC assessment process will suffice—ignoring completely the reality that these very scientists refer to the IPCC as “us”, namely, that drawing an arbitrary distinction between their climate work and that of the IPCC is meaningless.
Phil Jones, the master of finding loopholes to hide behind, enters the fray: