Climate Gate 2 Emails

[Pass the Ball]

Rcptn - Rather than having to read all of that Gobbledygook, can you sum up what has been said...

Chook - Can you then counter this summation with your views..

Thanks..

[Guest]

Rcptn - Rather than having to read all of that Gobbledygook, can you sum up what has been said...

Chook - Can you then counter this summation with your views..

Thanks..

I have no intention of again entering into a debate with rcptn on this subject as there is no point. He is on my ignore list so I can't see the dribble he posts but I can guess he's quoting the britsh skeptic whose had a piece published in the Wall Street Journal. I can't think of his name but he's on record as stating he doesn't read any science papers only interprets other people's interpretations of science papers. The bloke is a proven fraud but suits idiots like rcptn and Andrew farking Dolt.

What everyone should know by know is rcptn is a conspricay theorist that I have proven previously to be 100% factless and full of shit and this is yet another attempt to portray something that does not exist = a wealth distributing, green, socialist, communist, one world government. All he does is regurgitate what Andrew Dolt spews forth.

Debating him is a waste of time as I have also proven previously.

Chook.

[Guest]

I have no intention of again entering into a debate with rcptn on this subject as there is no point. He is on my ignore list so I can't see the dribble he posts but I can guess he's quoting the britsh skeptic whose had a piece published in the Wall Street Journal. I can't think of his name but he's on record as stating he doesn't read any science papers only interprets other people's interpretations of science papers. The bloke is a proven fraud but suits idiots like rcptn and Andrew farking Dolt.

What everyone should know by know is rcptn is a conspricay theorist that I have proven previously to be 100% factless and full of shit and this is yet another attempt to portray something that does not exist = a wealth distributing, green, socialist, communist, one world government. All he does is regurgitate what Andrew Dolt spews forth.

Debating him is a waste of time as I have also proven previously.

Chook.

Thats unfair Chook his post on the Democracy Dead thread about the city of Erdos in bustling and booming inner Mongolia being the start of China's decline to be very insightful

[Guest]

Rcptn - Rather than having to read all of that Gobbledygook, can you sum up what has been said...

Chook - Can you then counter this summation with your views..

Thanks..

Rather than do that I suggest you read the summation at the beginning of each of my posts and make up your mind from that.

[Guest]

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/27/cl...soon-baliunas/

Climategate 2.0: Mann suggests Harvard take action against Soon, Baliunas
Posted on November 27, 2011 by Steve Milloy | 6 Comments
… simply for publishing a paper with a different view than his. Mann also fantasizes about action by the National Academy of Sciences!

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Penn State hokey stick tyrant Michael Mann e-mails Tom Wigley complaining about two Soon-Balunias studies — and their association with Harvard:

… But the [Soon-Balunias] papers certainly got a lot more mileage than they should have. The fact that the forces of disinformation were able to get that much mileage out of these two awful papers written by those clowns should remain a real cause for concern. Their ability to repeatedly co-opt the Harvard news office remains a real problem. Nobody I’ve talked to at Harvard is happy about this, and there’s been talk of action on the part of various of the faculty, but nobody seems willing or able to mount enough of an effort to get anything done about this. Apparently there was a threat of a lawsuit against Harvard last time folks there tried to do something about Baliunas, and so they may have lost their nerve. But I know our Harvard colleagues are not happy about continually having their institutional name dragged through the mud. If someone has close ties w/any individuals there who might be in a position to actually get some action taken on this, I’d highly encourage pursuing this. Re, an NAS committee–this is an interesting idea. But I wonder if a committee on [Soon-Baliunas] would be overkill, perhaps giving these fools just the stage that they’re looking for. [Emphasis added]

The e-mail exchange is below.

cc: Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck , Caspar M
Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith
Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes
, Phil Jones

, Tim Osborn
, Kevin Trenberth , Ben Santer
, Steve Schneider
date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:38:13 -0700
from: “Malcolm Hughes”
subject: Re: letter to Senate
to: “Michael E. Mann” , Michael Oppenheimer

Colleagues,
I’m very torn between being drawn into endless exchanges outside normal
scientific discourse (e.g. tit-for-tat with the Idsos group) and leaving the field
open to them. They clearly have the resources to do fairly careful literature
searches, even if there are some serious conceptual problems in their writings,
and there is a real audience for their kind of materials, both in print
publication and on the web. I fear that you would find more colleagues and
grad students than you would like to think read their materials and are
influenced by them. Apart from anything else they respond better to the
heavily referenced articles by Idso or Soon than to “ex cathedra” statements
like the recent editorial by Barnett and Somerville. I know this to be the case
in the paleo community, although there the picture is complicated by the
differences in scientific approach of those working on interannual to century
time scales (i.e. folks like us) and those working on millennial and longer
time scales (notably Wally Broecker, Wijbjorn Karlen, but many others too).
One consequence of this intersection of differing sources of scepticism (sensu
stricto) is that an appeal to the NAS could be counterproductive – remember
the poor treatment of high-res paleo in the NAS report requested by the White
House the other year.
Let’s learn from these guys. We don’t have to strain to publish in the peerreviewed
literature – it’s our normal way of working. We do have to find a
more effective way of publicizing and interpreting these publications, when
appropriate, to a wider audience, including policy makers. How best to do
this?
Cheers, Malcolm
.
.
> Tom, Mike et al:
> 1. Making the S B papers the sole or main subject of an NRC committee
> would be a mistake. 2. But dispensing of them as a minor part of an
> NRC examination of paleoclimate makes sense. Some of you may recall
> the Idso, Newell contratemps of 20 years ago, and as I recall, this is
> how it was handled. 3. For the near term, the rebuttal paper in Eos is
> a terrific example of what can and should be done in such
> cirumstances, and the AGU press release is more than I would have
> expected. We’ve provided all the necessary ammunition. The best you
> can do now is be responsive if reporters or Congressional staff call.
> 4. For the long haul, in additon to the NRC committee route, some
> thought needs to be given to more formal ways to respond to such
> situations, which I expect to continue to arise indefinitely. This is
> one role for IPCC and NRC, but both are painfully slow. Perhaps AGU
> and AMS and AAAS need to see their roles as partly to provide a venue
> for such clarifications. The key this time was rapid turnover. Maybe
> Don Kennedy and Science could be engaged in this somehow. Michael
>
> “Michael E. Mann” wrote:
> Tom,
> Thanks for your email, and your (and Ben’s) thoughtful comments on
> all of this… I think the Eos piece has gone a long way to
> discrediting the ‘science’behind the “BS” papers (well,
> technically, “SB”, but I prefer the reverse order too). The paper
> Phil and I have in press in GRL (hopefully to appear within a few
> weeks now) will reinforce this. But the BS papers certainly got a
> lot more mileage than they should have. The fact that the forces
> of disinformation were able to get that much mileage out of these
> two awful papers written by those clowns should remain a real
> cause for concern. Their ability to repeatedly co-opt the Harvard
> news office remains a real problem. Nobody I’ve talked to at
> Harvard is happy about this, and there’s been talk of action on
> the part of various of the faculty, but nobody seems willing or
> able to mount enough of an effort to get anything done about this.
> Apparently there was a threat of a lawsuit against Harvard last
> time folks there tried to do something about Baliunas, and so they
> may have lost their nerve. But I know our Harvard colleagues are
> not happy about continually having their institutional name
> dragged through the mud. If someone has close ties w/ any
> individuals there who might be in a position to actually get some
> action taken on this, I’d highly encourage pursuing this. Re, an
> NAS committee–this is an interesting idea. But I wonder if a
> committee on BS would be overkill, perhaps giving these fools just
> the stage that they’re looking for. An alternative would be, as
> you say, to take this on in the context of another more general
> NAS panel. Coincidentally, there is already a panel on “Radiative
> Forcing Effects on Climate” which convenes this falI. I believe
> the panel makeup is now in the public domain (or will be within
> days, on the NAS website) so there’s no secret here. I’m on the
> panel. Daniel Jacob will be chairing it, and others on it are Jeff
> Kiehl, Francis Zwiers, Roni Avissar, Judith Lean, Stuart Gaffin,
> Lynn Russell. Also on the panel will be Ramanathan, Pielke Sr,
> Gerard Bond, Ulrike Lohmann, and Hadi Dowlatabadi (whom I don’t
> know). Its a somewhat odd makeup, and I suspect that consensus
> will not be easy (there are at least a couple obvious trouble
> spots), but there is certainly a core group of reasonable folks on
> the panel, and this could be an opportunity to clarify the state
> of the science on long- term forced variability (including e.g.
> comparisons of model simulations and reconstructions of the past
> 1000 years). This, at least indirectly, would deal w/ the BS
> issue. I’m interested in the thoughts of others on any of the
> above. cheers, mike At 08:13 PM 7/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
> Folks, Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising
> from talking to Ben. What is worrying is the way this BS paper has
> been hyped by various groups. The publicity has meant that the
> work has entered the conciousness of people in Congress, and is
> given prominence in some publications emanating from that sector.
> The work appears to have the imprimateur of Harvard, which gives
> it added credibility. So, what can we as a community do about
> this? My concerns are two-fold, and I think these echo all of our
> concerns. The first is the fact that the papers are simply bad
> science and the conclusions are incorrect. The second is that the
> work is being used quite openly for political purposes. As
> scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need
> to concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to
> do this in as authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it
> is enough to speak as individuals or even as a group of recognized
> experts. Even as a group, we will not be seen as having the
> ‘power’ of the Harvard stamp of approval. What I think is
> necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU and AMS. It
> would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves from
> the work. Most importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into
> the picture. With these 4 institutions, together with us (and
> others) as experts, pointing out clearly that the work is
> scientific rubbish, we can certainly win this battle. I suggest
> that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best option)
> assess the science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but still
> potentially very useful) assess the general issue of the paleo
> record for global- or hemispheric-scale temperature changes over
> the past 1000 years. The second option seems more likely to be
> acceptable to NAS. This is arguably an issue of similar importance
> to the issue of climate sensitivity uncertainties which NAS
> reviewed earlier this year (report still in preparation). I am not
> sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this — ideas are welcome.
> Similarly, perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types
> better than I do and can make some suggestions here. The only way
> to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can muster. The
> Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS (even
> above IPCC) as a final authority, so I think we should actively
> pursue this path. Best wishes, Tom.
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
> Dear All:
> Since several of you are uncomfortable, it makes good sense to
> step back and think about a more considered approach. My view is
> that scientists are fully justified in taking the initiative to
> explain their own work and its relevance in the policy arena. If
> they don’t, others with less scruples will be heard instead. But
> each of us needs to decide his or her own comfort zone. In this
> case, the AGU press release provides suitable context, so it may
> be that neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement would
> add much at this time. But this episode is unlikely to be the last
> case where clarity from individuals or groups of scientists will
> be important. Michael Tom Wigley wrote:
>
> Folks,
> I am inclined to agree with Peck. Perhaps a little more thought
> and time could lead to something with much more impact? Tom.
> _____________________________ Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
>
> Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not
> sign – at least not without some real time to think it through and
> debate the issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that
> worries me. My vote would be that we don’t do this without a
> careful discussion first. I think it would be more appropriate for
> the AGU or some other scientific org to do this – e.g., in
> reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on
> global climate change. Think about the next step – someone sends
> another letter to the Senators, then we respond, then… I’m not
> sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the
> AGU etc to do it. What are the precedents and outcomes of similar
> actions? I can imagine a special-interest org or group doing this
> like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
> scientists to do as individuals? Just seems strange, and for that
> reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real thought,
> and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support. Cheers,
> Peck
>
>
>
>
> Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
> Given the continued assault on the science of
> climate change by some
> on Capitol Hill, Michael and I thought it would be
> worthwhile to send
> this letter to various members of the U.S. Senate,
> accompanied by a
> copy of our Eos article.
> Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael
> and me (providing
> your preferred title and affiliation). We would like
> to get this out ASAP.
> Thanks in advance,
> Michael M and Michael O
> __________________________________________
> ____________________
> Professor Michael E. Mann
> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark
> Hall
> University of Virginia
> Charlottesville, VA 22903

[Guest]

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/26/cl...we-know-f-all/


Climategate 2.0: ‘We know f***-all’
Posted on November 26, 2011 by Steve Milloy | Leave a comment
Columbia dendrologist Ed Cook knows how much Michael Mann et al. knows — and ever will know — about historic global temperatures.

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Cook proposes an all-star research team figure out what we know of historical temperatures from paleo-reconstructions. Here’s what he says they would learn:

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know ****-all).

Read the e-mail below.

date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:32:11 -0400
from: Edward Cook
subject: An idea to pass by you
to: Keith Briffa

Hi Keith,
After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as
described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley’s
follow-up talk on how everybody but him has ****ed up in
reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is
a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of
papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come
up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the
tentative title:
“Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are
The Greatest Uncertainties?”
Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D’Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones
(??), Mann (infinite?) – I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too
personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is
probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in – Bradley
hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they
can contribute without just defending their past work – this is the
key to having anyone involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table
and don’t start by assuming that ANY reconstruction is better than
any other.
Here are my ideas for the paper in a nutshell (please bear with me):
1) Describe the past work (Mann, Briffa, Jones, Crowley, Esper, yada,
yada, yada) and their data over-laps.
2) Use the Briffa&Osborn “Blowing Hot And Cold” annually-resolved
recons (plus Crowley?) (boreholes not included) for comparison
because they are all scaled identically to the same NH extra-tropics
temperatures and the Mann version only includes that part of the NH
(we could include Mann’s full NH recon as well, but he would probably
go ballistic, and also the new Mann&Jones mess?)
3) Characterize the similarities between series using unrotated
(maybe rotated as well) EOF analysis (correlation for pure
similarity, covariance for differences in amplitude as well) and
filtering on the reconstructions – unfiltered, 20yr high-pass, 100-20
bandpass, 100 lowpass – to find out where the reconstructions are
most similar and different – use 1st-EOF loadings as a guide, the
comparisons of the power spectra could also be done I suppose
4) Do these EOF analyses on different time periods to see where they
differ most, e.g., running 100-year EOF windows on the unfiltered
data, running 300-year for 20-lp data (something like that anyway),
and plot the 1st-EOF loadings as a function of time
5) Discuss where the biggest differences lie between reconstructions
(this will almost certainly occur most in the 100 lowpass data),
taking into account data overlaps
6) Point out implications concerning the next IPCC assessment and EBM
forcing experiments that are basically designed to fit the lower
frequencies – if the greatest uncertainties are in the >100 year
band, then that is where the greatest uncertainties will be in the
forcing experiments
7) Publish, retire, and don’t leave a forwarding address
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know ****-all).
Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of
seasonality of response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an
empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH reconstructions
because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used in both seasonal
and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons
differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any
direct consideration of their TRUE association with observed
temperatures.
I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done
before the next IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has
to have a reasonably broad spectrum of authors to avoid looking like
a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.
If you don’t want to do it, just say so and I will drop the whole
idea like a hot potato. I honestly don’t want to do it without your
participation. If you want to be the lead on it, I am fine with that
too.
Cheers,
Ed
–
==================================
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar and
Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Email:!drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu
Phone:! 845-365-8618
Fax:! 845-365-8152
==================

[Guest]

Thats unfair Chook his post on the Democracy Dead thread about the city of Erdos in bustling and booming inner Mongolia being the start of China's decline to be very insightful

I can imagine.

Chook.

[Guest]

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/25/cl...t-place-op-ed/


Climategate 2.0: Mann works with Environmental Defense Fund to edit, place op-ed
Posted on November 25, 2011 by Steve Milloy | Leave a comment
EDF is the PR firm for Climategaters.

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Apparently at the request of the Environmental Defense Fund, Michael Mann drafts an op-ed in response to an op-ed in USA Today by Nick Schulz (TechCentralStation.com). Mann send his draft to Environmental Defense Fund lawyer Annie Petsonk for review and placement:

…Before midnight as promised
here is a rough draft of an op-ed. Any help I can get from you or any associates of yours in refining this and getting this published will be very helpful. I can work on co-authors tomorrow morning. iPerhaps we can send something similar on to other newswire journalists such as Joan Lowey, etc…

Mann goes on to recruit Phil Jones as a co-signer as well possibly Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn. Jones chimes in with:

Need to fully cover any accusations of making the mistake deliberately.

Don’t worry Phil. We’re sure EDF took care of that.

Read the e-mail exchange below.

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\winmail64.dat”
date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:05:09 -0500
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: Fwd: draft
to: Phil Jones

, “raymond s. bradley” ,
mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, tom crowley ,
k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, crowley@duke.edu
Dear All,
Particularly the British among us–what’s the latest you guys will have access to email
today (Eastern Standard Time US please, since my brain is not working quick as well
after
all the sleep deprivation). I’m going to try to work w/ Annie Petsonk at EDF to
incorporate their suggestions w/ those you guys have provided, but we’ll probably need
to
finalize this and confirm authors by early afternoon east coast U.S. time…
Will keep you posted of any developments as they occur.
Thanks for all the wonderful advice, and your critical support at this particular time,
mike
At 09:16 AM 10/29/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I’m happy to sign up for this and Keith and Tim may like to as well, so cc’ing this
reply
to them as well. I’m off this afternoon to Newcastle so will be out of contact till I
get there.
I will have a chance to check email tomorrow am.
Here are a few thoughts in the meantime:
1. Text needs a little fine tuning as Malcolm says and getting in dates of emails etc
between
you, Scott and them would be good. I doubt that such details will make it into the
final piece,
but they are useful background evidence.
2. I would really have a go at Schulz’s second sentence — ‘If it withstands scrutiny
…..’
This is what the whole peer-review process is about and E&E have clearly failed to get
the
paper adequately reviewed. Papers do get scrutinized after publication, but this is
almost always
about the interpretation of results, not simple methodological flaws or clear mistakes.
Perhaps, something like, The authors did not seem to stop to think why their results
were
so different from MBH. Any respectable scientists attempting to repeat or reanalyze
earlier
work would want to fully understand why the results were different. Any scientist
wanting to
publish such differences would want to check, double-even-triple check their results.
The
study here seems to have accepted the results, possibly because they appear at first
glance
to be the results they wanted. They should have stopped to think why they were so
different, especially as several other groups have obtained essentially the same basic
results
as MBH, with different proxy networks and different methods of combining the results.
Also, would the authors have published the results if the ‘random’ data had showed
the
opposite result. I guess it could have by chance, but I suspect they would have been
more
cautious as the result did not agree with their preconceptions.
3. Related to the above there is the fact that their results just don’t look right. I
always say
that data analysts need to have a feel for the data. Here, the result just looks plain
wrong.
I try to drum this into my students and post-docs – saying go back and find the
mistake,
the results aren’t right !
4. Also need to cover the issue of Scott’s inadvertent mistake. I’ve no idea how to do
anything
in Excel – except get any data out of it ! I’m told it is quite difficult to write out
data in excel
spreadsheet format. Back to the post-grads – they often come and say ‘Excel can’t do
it’ to
which I retort then program the method from scratch in Fortran. I may be a dinosaur in
this
respect, but this helps understand the technique being used, as you have to go
through
it
step by step.
Need to fully cover any accusations of making the mistake deliberately.
Anyway, have a few other things to do before going off at 11
Cheers
Phil
At 00:10 29/10/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
oops, my draft op-ed was pasted at the end of that previous email. here it is up front,
mike
DRAFT REPLY TO USA TODAY OPINION PIECE
The opinion piece “Researchers question key global-warming study” published in USA
Today
by Nick Schulz, describes a deeply flawed article published in a discredited journal
“Energy and Environment” by two individuals with no scientific expertise. The article
is deceptive on multiple accounts.
It was not revealed that TechCentralStation.com, the website that the author Nick
Shultz
edits, receives considerable funding from Exxon-Mobile–this makes Schulz hardly
disinterested matter in discussions of human-induced climate change and climate
change
policy.
Schulz makes the blatantly false claim: Mann never made his data available online nor
did many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research. That
by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change panel’s scientific process.
The data used by Mann and colleagues have been in the public domain for nearly two
years, at the readily accessible website: [1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/
Had the authors of the study in question used the publicly available data provided by
Mann and colleagues, they would have reproduced their overall results, and those of
numerous other paleoclimatologists who have produced statistically indistinguishable
results to those of Mann and colleagues. Instead, the authors requested from an
associate of Mann and coworkers a specially formatted, spreadsheet version of the
data
set. There appear to have been some significant errors in that version of the dataset.
Even though the authors detected some problems, they did not contact the associate
who
sent them the data to inquire about them. The spreadsheet version inadvertently
appears
to have overprinted much of the early data, rending the proxy data set prior to about
1600 erroneous. It is the use of the incorrect early values in the proxy series that
lead to the wide divergence of the authors estimates from nearly all previously
published estimates during the 15th and 16th centuries. The anomalous warmth they
claim
to reconstruct in those centuries is nothing more than an artifact of their having used
scrambled early data in place of the correct data.
There are other more minor sources of error. The authors misapplied the methodology
of
Mann et al by convoluting their previous estimated temperature patterns from one
dataset
with an inconsistent set of temperature estimates from an entirely different dataset.
However, it is the use of scrambled estimates of the proxy data that is responsible for
the huge errors in their estimates during the 15th-16th centuries.
Had this paper been submitted to reputable scientific journal, such as Nature (where
the
original paper by Mann and colleagues was published) or Science, where high quality
paleoclimatic work has often been published, the deep flaws would have quickly been
uncovered in their method. Instead, the authors published their article in a social
science journal, “Energy and Environment”, with questionable editorial practices (as
detailed in an article last September in the Chronicle of Higher Education).
The journal “Energy and Environment” if it has any editorial integrity, will demand a
retraction of the paper by McKitrick and McIntyre’s, as the results presented are
entirely spurious, and the conclusions wholly without merit.
The assertion in dozens of more mainstream, scientific publications that late 20th
century Northern Hemisphere average warmth is unprecedented not only in the past
six
centuries (as shown by Mann and colleagues in 1998), but at least the past millennium
or
longer is the conclusion of more than a dozen independent studies published in
reputable
scientific journals over the past several years and this latest deeply flawed study does
nothing whatsoever to change those conclusions.
At 12:03 AM 10/29/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:
I know how sick you guys are of this routine by now. hopefully, this is the last time.
EDF wants to try to help me get a response to the USA Today opinion piece by Nick
Schulz
into tomorrows edition. She thinks we could use several co-authors from the paleo
community, and Steve S thinks they’ll have to print it, because Schulz completely lied
about us supposedly not having provided our data in the public domain (they’ve been
on a
public website on our machine holocene since March ’02 according to the dates on the
files)…
We need to finalize this by tomorrow afternoon.
Can I get any/all of you to sign on w/ me. We’ll work on revising and finalizing
tomorrow morning/afternoon.
let me know. thanks,
mike
p.s. the op-ed piece is pasted in below:
Researchers question key global-warming study
By Nick Schulz
An important new paper in the journal Energy & Environment upsets a key scientific
claim
about climate change. If it withstands scrutiny, the collective scientific understanding
of recent global warming might need an overhaul.
A little background is needed to understand the importance of the new research behind
this paper by Stephen McIntyre, a statistics expert who works in the mining industry,
and Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. As
scientists and governments have tried to understand mankind’s influence on the
environment, global warming has become a primary concern. Do mankind’s activities
especially burning fossil fuels to create energy affect climate? If so, how? What should
be done?
These questions were so important that in 1988 the United Nations, along with the
World
Meteorological Organization, formed the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
(IPCC) to study “human-induced climate change.”
Ten years after IPCC’s founding, a paper from Michael Mann, now an assistant
professor
of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and his colleagues in the
journal Nature shook scientific and political circles. It reconstructed temperatures
dating back to the year 1400 by looking at tree rings, ice cores and other so-called
proxy records to derive a temperature signature. This was before the sophisticated
climate-measuring equipment we use today.
What Mann claimed to find was startling: The late-20th century was unusually warm
warmer
than at any time in the previous six centuries. (Later research by Mann extended the
climate history back 1,000 years.) The reason? “It really looks like (the recent
warming) can only be explained by greenhouse gases,” Mann said then. His clear
implication: The Earth’s climate was changing dramatically, and mankind was
responsible.
Earth heats up?
The U.N. used Mann’s research to declare the 1990s “the warmest decade and 1998
the
warmest year of the millennium.” Countless news stories picked up on this idea that the
past few years have been unusually warm.
Efforts to limit the emission of the greenhouse gases blamed for this warming were
bolstered by Mann’s research. In fact, this week the Senate plans to consider
legislation co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.,
to
reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. McCain’s Web site says, “Global warming is
a
growing problem. … The 10 warmest years (on record) have all occurred since 1987.”
The
statement is based on Mann’s research.
But what if it’s not true?
When McIntyre and McKitrick audited Mann’s data to see whether its conclusions could
be
replicated, they discovered significant problems. Once they corrected the errors, the
two researchers made a remarkable conclusion: The late 20th century was not
unusually
warm by historical standards.
Not alone in his conclusion
When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other scientists before
being
published, Mann said he had heard about it but had not seen it. He called it a
“political stunt” and said “dozens of independent studies published by leading journals”
had come to conclusions similar to his.
What’s to guarantee McKitrick and McIntyre’s research will withstand the kind of
scrutiny they gave Mann’s research?
In an interview, McKitrick said, “If a study is going to be the basis for a major policy
decision, then the original data must be disseminated and the results have to be
reproducible. That’s why in our case we have posted everything online and invite
outside
scrutiny.”
Mann never made his data available online nor did many of the earlier researchers
whose
data Mann relied upon for his research. That by itself raises questions about the U.N.
climate-change panel’s scientific process.
It remains to be seen whether the McKitrick and McIntyre study will withstand the
“outside scrutiny” they have asked for and will no doubt receive. But given the
implications of the errors and problems they apparently have unearthed within the
Mann
study, the two researchers have done a tremendous service to science and the public,
which should rely on facts to make informed public policy decisions.
Nick Schulz is editor of TechCentralStation.com, a science, technology and public
policy
Web site.
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:58:21 -0500
To: Annie_Petsonk@environmentaldefense.org
From: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: draft
Cc: mann@virginia.edu
Before midnight as promised
here is a rough draft of an op-ed. Any help I can get from you or any associates of
yours in refining this and getting this published will be very helpful.
I can work on co-authors tomorrow morning. iPerhaps we can send something similar
on to
other newswire journalists such as Joan Lowey, etc…
DRAFT REPLY TO USA TODAY OPINION PIECE
The opinion piece “Researchers question key global-warming study” published in USA
Today
by Nick Schulz, describes a deeply flawed article published in a discredited journal
“Energy and Environment” by two individuals with no scientific expertise. The article
is deceptive on multiple accounts.
It was not revealed that TechCentralStation.com, the website that the author Nick
Shultz
edits, receives considerable funding from Exxon-Mobile–this makes Schulz hardly
disinterested matter in discussions of human-induced climate change and climate
change
policy.
Schulz makes the blatantly false claim: Mann never made his data available online nor
did many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research. That
by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change panel’s scientific process.
The data used by Mann and colleagues have been in the public domain for nearly two
years, at the readily accessible website: [2]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/
Had the authors of the study in question used the publicly available data provided by
Mann and colleagues, they would have reproduced their overall results, and those of
numerous other paleoclimatologists who have produced statistically indistinguishable
results to those of Mann and colleagues. Instead, the authors requested from an
associate of Mann and coworkers a specially formatted, spreadsheet version of the
data
set. There appear to have been some significant errors in that version of the dataset.
Even though the authors detected some problems, they did not contact the associate
who
sent them the data to inquire about them. The spreadsheet version inadvertently
appears
to have overprinted much of the early data, rending the proxy data set prior to about
1600 erroneous. It is the use of the incorrect early values in the proxy series that
lead to the wide divergence of the authors estimates from nearly all previously
published estimates during the 15th and 16th centuries. The anomalous warmth they
claim
to reconstruct in those centuries is nothing more than an artifact of their having used
scrambled early data in place of the correct data.
There are other more minor sources of error. The authors misapplied the methodology
of
Mann et al by convoluting their previous estimated temperature patterns from one
dataset
with an inconsistent set of temperature estimates from an entirely different dataset.
However, it is the use of scrambled estimates of the proxy data that is responsible for
the huge errors in their estimates during the 15th-16th centuries.
Had this paper been submitted to reputable scientific journal, such as Nature (where
the
original paper by Mann and colleagues was published) or Science, where high quality
paleoclimatic work has often been published, the deep flaws would have quickly been
uncovered in their method. Instead, the authors published their article in a social
science journal, “Energy and Environment”, with questionable editorial practices (as
detailed in an article last September in the Chronicle of Higher Education).
The journal “Energy and Environment” if it has any editorial integrity, will demand a
retraction of the paper by McKitrick and McIntyre’s, as the results presented are
entirely spurious, and the conclusions wholly without merit.
The assertion in dozens of more mainstream, scientific publications that late 20th
century Northern Hemisphere average warmth is unprecedented not only in the past
six
centuries (as shown by Mann and colleagues in 1998), but at least the past millennium
or
longer is the conclusion of more than a dozen independent studies published in
reputable
scientific journals over the past several years and this latest deeply flawed study does
nothing whatsoever to change those conclusions.
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
__________________________________________________ ____________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
__________________________________________________ _____________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
__________________________________________________ ____________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
__________________________________________________ _____________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
__________________________________________________ ____________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
__________________________________________________ _____________________
e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
[6]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml