Saturday, November 21, 2009

Some CRU email summaries #4

ROLLING UPDATES
Last update at 15.23 21/11/09

Shug Niggurath's database has been updated to read the references that Bishop hill quotes: I shall be going through the list and applying links.


Bishop Hill has been trawling the communications and come up with some basic pointers—the reference number after the summary is the email number.
  1. Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired. (1256765544)

  2. Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers. (1047388489)

  3. Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results. (0939154709)

  4. Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".

  5. Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request. (1212063122)

  6. Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase. (0942777075)

  7. Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace. (0872202064)

  8. Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article. (1255352257)

  9. Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't. (1255352257)

  10. Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap. (1257532857)

  11. Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

  12. Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

  13. Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)

  14. Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands. (1257546975)

  15. Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant). Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it. (1254756944)

  16. Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research. (0826209667)

  17. Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible. (1255523796)

  18. Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate. (1139521913)

  19. Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them". (1106338806)

  20. Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context. (1206628118)

  21. Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community. (1102687002)

  22. Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case). (1228330629)

  23. Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically. (1140554230)

  24. Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems. (1024334440)

  25. Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings. (1252164302)

  26. Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat. (1233249393)

  27. Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why? data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS. (1237496573)

  28. Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

  29. Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland. (1210367056)

  30. Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

  31. Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4] (1189722851)

  32. Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal. (0926010576)

  33. Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it. (1059664704)

  34. Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago. (0938018124)

  35. Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!] (1219239172)

  36. Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted. (1254259645)

  37. Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick. This back in 2004. (1096382684)

  38. Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has. (0843161829)

  39. Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

  40. Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report. (1089318616)

  41. Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

  42. Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting. (1249503274)

  43. David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm. (1105019698)

  44. Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it. (1054756929)

  45. Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU. (1233249393)

  46. Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics. (1107454306)

His Ecclesiastical Eminence is currently updating this list as I write, so do feel free to refresh the page every now and again. I shall be adding more as the good Bishop does, so feel free to refresh The Kitchen too...

Is everyone enjoying themselves...?

UPDATE: as usual, Tom Nelson is monitoring the world's media for climate change stories—as well as plumbing the depths of these documents himself.

UPDATE 2: Bishop Hill is still trawling the emails and has pulled out some more items of interest...
  • Phil Jones having problems with explaining issues over the Lamb image of global temps in the early IPCC reports. Says it shouldn't be discussed openly at Real Climate. Says better left buried. (1168356704)

  • Phil Jones emails Steve [Schneider], editor of Climatic Change [plus others, editorial board of the journal?], telling him he shouldn't accede to McIntyre's request for Mann's computer code. In later email to Mann ("For your eyes only, delete after reading") Jones says he told Jones separately [presumably meaning without saying to the rest of the board] that he should seek advice elsewhere and also consult the publisher and take legal advice. (1074277559)

  • Briffa says he tried hard to balance the needs of the IPCC and science, which were not always the same.(1177890796)

  • An anonymous source says that robustness problems with the Hockey Stick are known to anyone who understands his methodology. The source says that there will be a lot of noise over McIntyre's 2003 paper and that knowing Mann'svery thin skin he will react strongly, unless he has learned from the past. (1067194064)

  • Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) says that IPCC is not an assessment of published science but about production of results. Says there are very few rules and anything goes. Thinks this will undermine IPCC credibility. Says everyone seems to think it's OK to do this. (0968705882)

  • IPCC review editor John Mitchell says that the issue of why proxy data for recent decades is not shown (he says it's because they don't show warming) needs to be explained. [Note to readers, this was not done Let's say that the explanation was nuanced - it said that the divergence problem, as this issue is known, was restricted to a few areas]. Also says that Mann's short-centred PC analysis is wrong and that Mann's results are not statistically significant. (1150923423)


UPDATING: a list of The Kitchen posts, so far, concerning this is posted below:
  1. Climate Alarmism revealed

  2. A selection of emails: Dr Keiller complains

  3. Real Climate responds

  4. Summarising the salient points of the emails

  5. The Englishman speculates

  6. Follow the money

  7. Harrabin leads the BBC fightback

  8. Random scandals: a conversation on dendroclimatology

  9. A note on the authenticity of the data

  10. Hacked? Or leaked?

And, just as a reminder, feel free to browse the searchable database.

22 comments:

Prodicus said...

No. Deliciously, not everyone is enjoying this. Hahahahahaha. Aha. Ha. My, this Caledonian medicine is good stuff. Cheers!

Blanket Of Ash said...

Apparently, it's all just been a terrible misunderstanding.

"My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists working on some of the most complicated questions of our times."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371597.stm

There will always be some "hurly burly" between those, more qualified than us, who are discussing issues far too complicated for us to understand.

The government is in control. There is no need for you to judge this for yourself. Go back to sleep ;)

Katabasis said...

Personally I can't express how much I am enjoying this - I recently lost a friend because of our disagreements over AGW. And with suitably delicious irony, our usual arguing points are pretty much covered by what has already been revealed.

All I can say is:

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha!!!

Mark M said...

Well, I think we can safely say why the man-made-climate-change camp refuses to allow open access to its data - you know, that peer-review thing that real scientists are required to adhere to if people are to believe their research.

Will this change anything, I bet not. But this is serious stuff. How much do we pay in the name of green taxes when the scientists themselves still can't find proof of man-made warming?

JuliaM said...

"Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news"."

OK, most of the emails are political machinations, as you'd expect, but that one?

That's pretty bloody evil. To be happy at the death of an opponent.

lotocoti said...

That's pretty bloody evil. To be happy at the death of an opponent.
I wouldn't call it evil.
Should Al Gore meet his demise in a freak accident involving a gerbil and a deep fried bacon & peanut butter sandwich, would my happiness be considered evil?

sconzey said...

Dear God, Yes!

This is what the internet is for!

That motherfucker FOIA best post his paypal details, good deeds like these deserves remenuration.

microdave said...

"Is everyone enjoying themselves...?"

Most certainly YES!!

Dick Puddlecote said...

"•Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research."

Thereby confirming that this is exactly what it is all about. In fact, what every dodgy vested interest shonky scientist/sociologist is all about, from climate change, through anti-smoking, to child protection.

Alarmism on tap from rent-seeking cash whores intent on supplying whatever scaremongery is required by their paymasters.

We all lose, of course, but a big loser in the long run is the scientific community and their long-term reputation. If I were an honest scientist, I would want them all hanging from a tree by the end of the week.

I'd like to point the hacker to other targets but I suspect there is some serious e-mail deletion going on at fake charity offices all over the world at this news.

Blanket Of Ash said...

>> If I were an honest scientist, I would want them all hanging from a tree by the end of the week.

Too true. This has nothing to do with science. Scientists love challenges, and want others to analyse their work.

It comes back to "education, education, education". It must be 15 years since I was in state science class, but even then the "Careers Advice" was that it was unlikely to be a productive activity. A scan of the syllabus shows why we are not breeding scientists any more ;)

Guthrum said...

I am indeed, meanwhile the BBC fails to report this, and blames the collapse of a bridge and death of a Police on Climate Change, not structural failure caused hydrolastic pressure, building on flood plains, filling in agricultural ditches in the last twenty years of relatively dry weather,not a massive body of man made water above Cockermouth, but climate change...... its a bit like saying God was angry and smote the unbeliever

Anonymous said...

In other words, just a bunch of public money grabbing cunts ... hmmmmm, a bit like MP's also?

Blanket Of Ash said...

Mark M,

>> Will this change anything, I bet not

Don't be downhearted ;)

To affect change, dis-satisfaction is required. Not yours, although this is an inevitable step :)

JuliaM said...

"I wouldn't call it evil.
Should Al Gore meet his demise in a freak accident involving a gerbil and a deep fried bacon & peanut butter sandwich, would my happiness be considered evil?"


Tricky one. We should always be sad at the death of a human being who hasn't killed anyone.

And I'd rather seem him stripped of his money and prestige than dead.

JuliaM said...

On the other hand, it is Al Gore, so...

No. My sympathies are with the gerbil!

JuliaM said...

"...meanwhile the BBC fails to report this, and blames the collapse of a bridge and death of a Police on Climate Change, not structural failure caused hydrolastic pressure, building on flood plains, filling in agricultural ditches in the last twenty years of relatively dry weather,not a massive body of man made water above Cockermouth, but climate change...... its a bit like saying God was angry and smote the unbeliever..."

They are? Oh, FFS!!

JD said...

CARBON TAX IS THEFT - PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=181254384531#/group.php?gid=181254384531&v=wall

Shug Niggurath said...

Updated the search tool to handle the filenames / refs quoted on Bishop Hill.

Shug Niggurath said...

Searchable CRU Emails

Katabasis said...

Great work on this Shug.

By the way, anyone wonder just how much front page bullshit the Independent can continue printing before its classified as a Tabloid?

"Although its intensity cannot on its own be ascribed to climate change, it is consistent with predictions of what a warmer world will mean for Britain."

FFS.

Anonymous said...

FOI requests:

One

Two

The more the merrier!

Anonymous said...

Great. Now that the AGX anti-scientists have been exposed as swindling, lying, faith-based zealots, can someone now leak info from those other bastions of mediaeaval anti-science, Stanton Glantz, ASH and the other charlatans involved in the anti-tobacco industry?