I know I said I was done reading this stuff, but my curiosity got the best of me. So, here I go again, but that’s it — honest.
Note: I’ve removed email addresses and taken out some odd-looking additional spacing that appeared when I copied the emails and/or their excerpts into this post. I also added a little spacing between paragraphs in some cases. All this was simply for ease of reading. All bold emphasis below is mine. Any additions or comments, in my own words, are in blue.
**********
Email #1109021312
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet:
PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks. He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
**********
Email #0880476729
From: Tom Wigley
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx,
grassl??@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger , rector@xxx.xx, oriordan@xxxxxx.xxx.xx.xx, uctpa??@xxx.xx.xx, john@xxxxxxxxxxx.xx, m parry@xxxx.xxx.xx.xx, pier vellinga@xxx.xx.xxxx.xx
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Reply-
to: Tom Wigley
Cc: Mike Hulme , t mitchell@xxx.xx.xx
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” In contrast to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3 review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting arguments in support of both “immediate control” and the spectrum of more cost-effective options. It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases” for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science — when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.
Let me remind you of the science.
[email continues -- see original]
**********
I found email #1141737742 (or series of emails, I should say) interesting as well. To me it points to an overall attitude of noncooperation — a sort of “passive resistance” approach. I won’t post it all here, it’s too long, but it seems to centre around Dr. McIntyre’s repeated requests for information forcing him to turn to Science‘s deputy editor Hanson for assistance. This led to an exchange of emails between Science’s editor Jesse Smith and Dr. Tim Osborn of UEA (University of East Anglia). Here are some excerpts below…
1) McIntyre to Hanson: “I appreciate your efforts in this and realize that you are frustrated at being criticized. However, if you reflect on the matter, I’m sure that you will agree that the problem stems entirely from the original authors failing to comply with Science’s data archiving policy. It will come as no surprise to you that I do not believe that the additional data, useful as it is, comes anywhere near discharging Science’s obligations under its data policies for reasons that I will set out in detail below.”
2) Smith to Osborn (Feb 23, 2006): “Wishing to deal with this issue in a conscientious and reasonable way, we are passing the email along to you as a request for data, without taking a position on the validity of any particular point. We would like to have your confidential response to this request, keeping in mind the stated policy of SCIENCE that ‘Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be honored.’”
3) Osborn’s reply to Smith (Mar 3, 2006): “Before responding to the specific data requests, we would like to say that it is our view that we should provide sufficient data to enable all the main elements of our analysis to be checked, but that we are not obliged to provide the data that would enable the research reported in other papers to be checked, even if we cite those other papers or use results reported in those other papers. You will see how this view has determined our response to some of the requests.”
Then Osborn forwards it all by email to Briffa with this message: “Keith – see below. I bet it won’t be the end of the episode!”
**********
Email #1255095172
Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record
Excerpt: “First, there was no intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over 20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature.”
My note: Hmmm…How can we be sure? See email at top of page.
**********
Email #1177534709
From: Ben Santer <xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx>
To: P.Jones@xxx.xx.xx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:58:29 -0700
Reply-to: xxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx
Dear Phil,
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. They seem to have no understanding of how science is actually done – no appreciation of the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of what we do.
**********
My question regarding above email: If uncertainty is so intregral (and I think CA does understand that), then how can these scientists be so certain that climate change is mainly caused by human activity?
————————————————–
Summary thus far: I believe the integrity of these scientists has been compromised. I think they honestly believe very strongly in their theories, their climate models, etc.; but they are blinded to any criticism or input from outside their little “consensus club.” To me it appears they have made concerted efforts to thwart the attempts by “outsider” scientists to replicate their results, or to dismiss results that conflict with their own.
UPDATE: Read The global warming conspiracy: its silencing of the sceptics. h/t: GayandRight
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }