«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 ...»
Osborn is frustrated that Ammann is handling his first request honestly, promising to check his emails for anything that may be confidential. Osborn here makes explicit to Ammann that this is not what he wants, but rather a blanket statement that he can use as a loophole to hide behind.
June 2, 2008: email 1212435868 Mike Mann writes to Phil Jones, reporting his progress in nominating Jones for the
award that Jones himself selected:
Hi Phil, This is coming along nicely. I’ve got five very strong supporting letter writers lined up to support your American Geophysical Union Fellowship nomination (confidentially: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, Jean Jouzel, and Lonnie Thompson have all agreed; I’m waiting to hear back from one more individual; the maximum is six letters, including mine as nominator).
Meanwhile, if you can pass along the following information that is needed for the nomination package, that would be very helpful. Thanks in advance!
June 4, 2008: email 1212587222 Steve McIntyre writes to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East
Dear Sir, Can you please send me a copy of the Farmer and co-workers 1989 paper, cited in Folland and Parker’s paper of 1995, which, in turn, is cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks, Steve McIntyre Phil Jones forwards the request to Mike Mann, and Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies:
This email came to the CRU last night.
(quotes above email) The CRU has just the one copy of this paper! We’ve just got a new scanner for a project, so someone here is going to try this out—and scan the roughly 150 pages. I’m doing this as this is one of the project reports that I wished I’d written up.
Jones’s admission is astounding: we learn that, as of June 2008, the CRU had no comprehensive electronic archive of its own reports; and he himself takes the blame for failing to write up a number of required project reports.
Mike Mann replies:
It seems to me that the CRU should charge him a fee for the service.
He shouldn’t be under the assumption that he has the right to demand that reports be scanned in for him on a whim. The CRU should require reasonable monetary compensation for the labor, effort (and postage!).
Mann’s stance is astonishing: McIntyre should pay for the labour of scanning in a report that should have been electronically archived decades earlier?
If this were a colleague acting in good faith, I’d say do it at no cost. But of, course, he’s not. He’s not interested in the truth here; he’s just looking for another way to try to undermine confidence in our science.
So the real issue is not the labour involved, but the fact that this is yet another loophole to hide behind.
I guess you’re going to get your money’s worth out of your scanner.
That Mann is unsurprised that the CRU is only now catching up with twenty-year-old technology is revealing.
June 8, 2008: email 1212924720
Mike Mann writes to Phil Jones on the issue most dear to his heart:
Hi Phil, I’m continuing to work on your nomination package to be awarded a Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union (here in my hotel room in Trieste—the weather isn’t any good!). If it’s possible for a case to be too strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as supporting letter writer, along with Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (Four of the five are already American Geophysical Union Fellows, which I’m told is important! Surprisingly, Ben is not yet, nor am I. But David Thompson is (quite young for one of these). I’m guessing that Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had something to do with that (wink).
Jones should take the hint: Mann will be wanting the favour to be paid back!
Anyway, I wanted to check with you on two things:
1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value of “N”, where “N” is the number of papers an individual authored or co-authored that have more than N citations. A level of N = 40 (i.e., an individual has published at least 40 papers that have each been cited at least 40 times) is supposedly an important threshold for admission in the United States National Academy of Sciences. I’m guessing your N is significantly greater than that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible.
Would you mind figuring out that number and sending it to me—I think it would be useful in really sealing the case.
Mann is not wrong: such dubious measures of “worth” really are used for such purposes. Of course, in the corrupted field of climate science, such citations are not just of dubious value, but completely meaningless, as Mann and his colleagues had complete control over what was published (and hence cited) and what was not, and repeatedly cited each other’s papers.
2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your two-page bibliography? In my nomination letter, I’m trying to underscore the diverse areas where you’ve made major contributions … For example, your early Nature papers with Wigley… in 1980 and 1981 seem to be among the earliest efforts to try to do this (though I don’t have copies of the papers, so can’t read them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me.
Mann wants to highlight “contributions” of Jones that he himself has never read!
Or is that an incorrect interpretation of his words?
Also, if you happen to have copies of the two early Wigley papers, or even just the text for the Abstracts, it would be great to have a little more detail about those papers so I can appropriately work them into the narrative of my letter.
No, it’s not: he has no idea what is in the papers he wants to cite.
June 11, 2008: email 1213201481
Phil Jones replies to Mike Mann, on Mann’s nomination of Jones:
On point 1 (what Mann called “N”), this is what people call the H index.
I’ve tried working this out, and there is software for it on the Web of Science website.
The problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in journals I’d never heard of and got 52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s and 1980s, so go with 52.
I don’t have soft copies of the early papers. I won’t be able to do anything for a few days either. When do you want this in, by the way?
Again, Jones reveals that there is no electronic archiving system at the Climatic
Research Unit. Mike Mann:
OK—thanks, I’ll just go with the H = 62. That is an impressive number and almost certainly higher than the vast majority of American Geophysical Union Fellows.
Mann ignores Jones’s own disclaimer that the figure of 62 is wrong, and decides to use it regardless.
In a later email:
I’ll … send you a copy of my nominating letter for comment and suggestions when I am done.
Also—can you provide one or two sentences about the 1980 and 1981 Nature articles with Wigley so that I might be able to work this briefly into the narrative of my letter?
So he doesn’t even feel the need to have a broad understanding of the papers, but will
let Jones write his own accolades of himself. Jones replies:
The 1980 and 1981 papers: I don’t have soft copies.
(summarizes each paper in one paragraph) I did look a while ago to see if Nature had back-scanned these papers, but they hadn’t.
Is the above enough? I have hard copies of these two papers—in Norwich.
Note that Jones does not take the opportunity of asking Mann to use the correct figure of H = 52 rather than 62. Jones is going along with Mann’s deception of the American Geophysical Union.
Thanks, Phil—yes, that’s perfect. I just wanted to have some idea of the paper; that’s more than enough information. I wouldn’t bother worrying about scanning in, etc.
I should have a draft letter for you to comment on within a few days or so, after I return from Trieste.
Mann assumes that Jones would have scanned in the papers, simply for the purpose of his own nomination for an award—but previously argued against scanning in a paper for the purposes of critical review by a skeptic. It is good to understand the priorities of these “scientists”.
June 13, 2008: email 1213387146
Ben Santer writes to the Editor of American Liberty Publishers:
Dear Sir, Your website (link) was recently brought to my attention. On this site, you
make the following claims:
In the Second Assessment Report, Benjamin Santer, lead author of a crucial study, falsified a chart to make it appear to support global warming—a conclusion not supported at all by the original data. But two climatologists, Knappenberger and Michaels, looked up the data and exposed the fraud.
Santer said he adjusted the data to make it agree with political policy.
These claims have no factual basis whatsoever, and are demonstrably libellous. I did not falsify data. I did not commit fraud. I did not—nor have I ever—”adjusted” scientific data “to make it agree with political policy.” Nor did I ever state that I had made data adjustments in order to conform to political policy.
I request that you retract these claims immediately. They are completely fictitious, and are harmful to my scientific reputation. If you do not retract these claims immediately, I will transfer this matter to the attention of legal staff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Sincerely, Dr. Benjamin Santer United States Department of Energy Distinguished Scientist (2006) Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award (2002) John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow (1998) Some explanatory comment is warranted here. The IPCC’s second assessment report (SAR) was published in 1996 and the Summary for Policy Makers (SFMP) included the oft-quoted words “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”. These words were sourced to Chapter 8 of the scientific working group’s report, but that report had several disclaimers of any such influence, disclaimers that were removed by Ben Santer, the ‘lead author’ who also, without any reference to his peers, had included the words concerning a “discernible human influence” in the Policy Maker’s Summary. So Ben Santer, acting on the advice of Tim Wirth, then US Under-Secretary of State and a close confidant of Al Gore, deleted important disclaimers from the text of Chapter 8, and then wrote into the SFPM the opposite conclusion from that of the Working Group. This led to a strong letter of protest, published in the WSJ, from Frederick Seitz, former President of the US National Academy of Sciences, and of the American Physical Society.
Ben Santer admitted to the truth of these events on a popular American TV programme, hosted by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, in mid-December 2009.
June 14, 2008: email 1213882741
Mike Mann is still hard at work, getting Phil Jones his award. He writes to Jones:
Hi Phil, I’ve attached a copy of my nomination letter. I just want to make sure I’ve got all my facts right—please let me know if there is anything I’ve gotten wrong or should be changed. I would be shocked is this doesn’t go through—you’re a no-brainer, and long overdue for this.
I’ve got letters from three of the five other letter writers now; I am waiting on the two last ones, and then will submit the package.
This is fine. … Another thanks for putting this all together.
Then Jones sends an addendum:
Mike, There is one typo in your nomination letter. I missed it the first time I read it. In the second paragraph, second line, remove the first “surface”. You have two, one before and one after “CRU”. Just the one after is needed.
Hilariously, Jones is correcting typos in his own nomination letter—but presumably letting the false citation number of H = 62 stand!!
I am waiting on two more letters, then I’ll send in the package to the American Geophysical Union. Should be a no-brainer!