The first part of this posting is here:
It’s best to start with that bit, as it has the context in it, including the bit where I say I’m trying to comment in the way in which I would project Foia is seeing things. An attempt to ‘see through their eyes’ to see what patterns they are likely seeing, so as to understand who they are better, so comments here are ‘in their voice’ as I sense it (though that will necessarily be a poor echo of them with my accent).
I’m just going to pick up this one in mid-stream…
Urban Heat Island, View From The Team
It is interesting that they find a UHI effect, sometimes, but seem uninterested in what that might mean to the validity of their conclusions… Jones looks like he really believes that UHI just doesn’t matter, despite the crummy handling of it in things like GIStemp.
/// The Urban Heat Effect ///
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.
[…] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[…] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
So we’ve got UHI reported in papers, some of which were rejected, and we know The Team manipulated things to get papers rejected. Was this one of them? Jones is trying to refute the findings, but is at a loss somewhat. From other analysis, we know that UHI is highest as things first change from rural to small cities, but also know that adding cars, tarmac, and miles of city on all sides heats things too. If more slowly a ramp up than when first turning cow fields to houses and roads.
there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets —
we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].
The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
all Californian sites.
Oh Dear! Find something they say is not there, and you become a ‘nitpicky jerk’… Well… Jones then recognizes that UHI was found in California. At all sites.
I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
[…] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
[…] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
There is no urban effect there.
Despite the evidence elsewhere, Jones stands his ground. Never mind that the three ‘independent’ systems share code and do a lousy job of UHI removal. How he gets ocean warming adjusted for the lag time in overturning is beyond me. That it matches the land slope makes me think it’s wrong. Land, with fast response, changes at the same rate as the oceans with a several hundred year turnover cycle? Doesn’t add up unless there is an effort to enforce conformity, conscious or not.
Carpet bag in hand, they press on…
/// Temperature Reconstructions ///
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
How to erase ‘problems’ with “careful wording”? I’m once again struck by the desire to Reach The Goal, even if it means ironing over things that are pointing to error. Error bars so wide things become “more honest” but “not be too helpful”? No problem, word paper it over…
Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[…] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
Well, some honesty creeps in.
These three find issues with statistical lack of significance, with random data generating a hockey stick like “Macintyre has been going on about” and one even says he wants to distance himself from the Mann/Jones paper. Wonder how their careers have progressed from this point? Would be interesting to see if they learned the hymnal or got sidetracked. In any case, we know that some ‘inside folks’ recognize The Team’s iconic work is a bit broken…
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. […] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
Oh Dear! So a long term ‘declining trend’ was removed before Mann merged? That sounds like a very serious issue in the Mann hockey stick, and Keith is not keen on recognizing it… I think I like this Esper guy. Truth first, consequences to be accepted.
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.
Cook, too, looks like he cares about how valid things are and using methods that work. He also recognizes that the Mann paper is not cutting it and is not being improved by the new aproach.
This next part has an interesting theme.
Et tu, Pope?
Lately we’ve seen The Pope come out in favor of several things from The Progressive Agenda. Is there influence here, too? How well do these folks keep separated their feelings of religion and the demands of science? Or are they critical of skeptics with a sense of religion? Which way does this sword swing?
/// Science and Religion ///
I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.
4394 Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]
[…] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
Earth […] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.
My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God’s planet into research and action.
Well, that’s a mixed bag. Wigley sees skeptics as having “extreme religious views” (shades of ‘clinging to their guns and religion’) while Hulme and Houghton seem driven to “action” by their religion. I guess how “extreme” it is depends on which side you are on…
I note in passing that ‘The Day After Tomrrow’ is held to be a good vehicle for getting out the “message”… A worse piece of non-scientific crap that has just about everything wrong or backwards I cannot remember… It would be interesting to see if any of The Team hang out with the related Hollywood characters…
He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.
OK, so we want a certain spin, we can get it from folks of the “sort of standpoint you are wanting”…
The religion angle looks a bit thin, but it does look like some amount of zeal being put forward. (Must be another one of those irregular words in English. I’m pious, you are zealous, he is an extreme rabid fanatic…)
I discover Truth, You model, He plays with toys
What do the insiders think of the models? We already saw one (in part one) where it was admitted that a tweak of the solar effect parameter eliminated the need for CO2 do do anything at all. What might be new here?
/// Climate Models ///
I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
Wow! This Watson guy talks like a real Scientist. Recognizes the limitations of a given tool. Expects observation to drive conclusions. Golly. Maybe there IS some hope. Yet in public all you hear is how accurate the models are. Does this disconnect speak to a corrupted process? Or a corrupted IPCC? Or both?
[“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
Ouch! Yes, Shukla, you have it right. Hanging $Trillions on models that don’t even get the basic building blocks right is kind of silly. It’s looking to me like the model guys recognize their limitations. So WHY does the rest of The Team think that ought to be forgotten and the Dire Catastrophe Model Runs ought to be used to scare people?
While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.
And another one! So, again, WHY are we having policy makers hang so much of the fate of the world on computer fantasies that even insiders know don’t work right?
More of the same clarity about ‘getting it wrong’ below, but look at those 2 astounding admissions from Jones!
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing […] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
OMG! All of it is wrong, folks don’t know how long they can “get away with it”, they KNOW they are just tuning the model to the data (a process that has no predictive ability) and Jones is fine with that as “there is no need for it to be correct”.
The only reasonable conclusion is that as long as it gives the desired answer that is politically correct, the physical correctness is not important. On the basis of those statements from Jones, alone, all model references ought to be stricken from the IPCC reports, all conclusions based on models ought to be stricken, and all papers which have conclusions based on models need a very serious reevaluation.
BEFORE we spend $Trillions based on those models…
Isn’t a Cause a non-Scientific thing?
So I know you can have a Political Cause, and a Religious Cause, and even a Humanitarian Cause… but can you have a Scientific “Cause”? Doesn’t the whole notion of ‘desired result’ that makes up a Cause, stand in opposition to Science, that is supposed to be the dispassionate search for fundamental truths?
/// The Cause ///
By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
Golly, that Mann guy is sure more focused on ‘the cause’ than on ‘the truth’… Wonder if that would ever influence how he does his science studies or what kind of results he would publish or wish to suppress? I think I’d rather not have folks creating Policy Advice based on a cause, any cause… but especially not if it is dressed up in the LOOK of objectivity when it is really driven by the agenda of The Cause.
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.
[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase
[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! […] Even though it’s been a mild winter in
the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the
La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
Not a very exiting batch, but it does show rooting for the desired outcome of global warming. I find the second one a bit ambiguous so a look at the context would help tell if it is the ‘warming trend’ that will continue to increase or the rate of data adjustments that will continue to increase. If the latter, that would be a heck of an admission. I’m going to step out of the role of just commenting on the excerpts as in the README, for just a moment, so show an example of what needs to be done with each of these ‘snippets’.
They all have some context, some added bits in the original email. Each needs to be looked at to see just what that is. In this case, I have an ambiguity and I can resolve it with a peek a the email. Even for ones without such an issue, The Look ought to be done to make sure the excerpt is not biasing things.
So what IS inside #121? I’ll be trimming the headers and some of the other clutter a bit, but the whole thing makes it clear they are to some extent talking about both. The adjustments will rise, and that will raise the temperature slope. They also worry a bit about the pressures that will likely bring. If find it fascinating that these guys are well aware of the fact they are adjusting the data and creating a warming trend by doing so.
cc: Gavin Schmidt ****firstname.lastname@example.org
date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:48:36 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann” ****email@example.com
subject: Re: [Fwd: Jones et al]
thanks Phil, Tom is probably even more vulnerable being in the states. He could become a new center of attack if NCDC indeed revises in a way that substantially increases the trends…
Managed to read your message Gavin. I knwo this isn’t going to stop and will get worse as the WG1 report publication nears.
Another issue that may overtake things is new work at NCDC, which is likely to raise recent temps (as the impact of the greater % of buoys is accounted for) and also reduce earlier temps (pre -1940) for reasons that aren’t that clear. Tom Peterson will be presenting this here tomorrow, so will learn more. Upshot is that their trend will increase….
Gavin has some good advice here, seems to reinforce the thoughts in your earlier email and Ben’s suggestion as well. Probably best to put the data up in their most raw format (except for those you can’t legally–in those cases give a pointer to the person involved). This will, as Gavin notes, blunt the line of attack that has the greatest traction.
If there is some way we can be helpful via RealClimate (e.g. in helping get the word out that the data have been posted once available, etc),
please let us know. I’m happy for us to use this as a resource in any way that might be helpful.
Michael E. Mann
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
The Pennsylvania State University email: ***firstname.lastname@example.org
University Park, PA 16802-5013
You see much more this way. First off, you see that NCDC and UEA are VERY closely coordinating with Mann kicking in RealClimate for it’s purpose of helping The Cause. It is not in any way an independent thing, it is a, in many ways, a mouthpiece for The Team.
They know they are adjusting the data in such a way as to cool the past and warm the present. It is ‘not clear’ why (one can only hope it was made clear in the presentation the next day, and not just rationalized). I’m left wondering “Just WHY can folks basically fool around with and change the temperature history of the planet, essentially at will, based on their desires and The Cause, when $Trillions of the economy will hang in the balance? Were this a new kind of aspirin, or the design of a modestly new automobile, the degree of testing, scrutiny, validation and just plain old regulation of activities would be orders of magnitude higher.
Yet here we see them in a fairly off hand manner talking about just up and changing things so the past is colder and the present hotter and oh well, there will be some flack but so what? Well just rally the troops with some RealClimate PR stuff and move on…
This is just SO wrong on so many levels. IMHO, behind many of the ‘snippets’ in this README file lurk such additional issues.
Ok, back to my ‘role play’ of trying to get inside the head of Foia…
Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are
forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy
Don’t see much ‘issue’ in this one, other than that it is clearly focused on the political angle. It does show that there is a group identity and a group expectation as to what is “sensible’ and that includes the belief that there ought to even BE a “climate policy”. To me, it is rather like saying the government ought to have a “sun policy” or an “orbit policy”.
We’re getting near the end. Just a bit more, so hang in there!
Foia and The Team on F.O.I.
Sidebar on me: Before we get into this, please indulge me just one more little sidebar. I’m pretty hard to reach via email. Sometimes I let it age for 2 or 3 months before I deal with it. This frustrates many, annoys most, and really pisses off a few. Why? Well, look at how much trouble email is causing all these folks?
I’ve been dealing with the crap email brings into folks lives, professionally, for over 30 years. Folks, it just is not worth it.
So I try to discourage folks from sending me lots of email. I really try to not say anything in email that I would not say in public for the simple reason that some day that email just might BE public. So figure if you are saying it in email, you ought to be ready to shout it on the Nightly News with your parents, spouse, lover, employer, employees, the District D.A., your worst enemies, your children, and the local town gossip AND your spouses worst enemies ALL present and listening.
I will NOT respond to any email that I think has improper content (i.e. anything that could hurt me or another) and, given present laws, really think it is about as safe as playing Russian Roulette. Email: Just Say NO!
So that’s why I don’t service the email queue much, or often. It’s just jail bait… or worse. Yet I have to have it sign up for things, like to create this blog or post on others. So it is there, but if I’m ever “on the stand” being asked about some bit of email someone sent to me, I’m just going to say “What email? Never read the stuff if I can avoid it.”
Back at the README:
Well, are these guys unbiased Scientists, happy to share their data and methods for replication? Willing to work in the light of day? Or do they run for the cracks and crevices when the kitchen light comes on?
/// Freedom of Information ///
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
OK, Jones knows about the liability email represents (especially now…) but his answer is to just delete everything. Well, in the rest of the world we have SarbOx and Government Retention Policys and other email retention laws. IMHO, those ought to apply to NASA and NCDC as well. How folks can use those accounts to work on IPCC and have that email deleted is a bit beyond me. Perhaps they can’t, as Foia has shown. What is clear from this statement, though, is that Jones is not interested in having his ‘work product’ visible. Speaks more to a political agenda than to a scientific one.
UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
SO Briffa is hiding stuff too. Nice to know he has a private stash… The clear statement here, though, is that he is deliberately acting to frustrate the law and dodge F.O.I.A. I’m pretty sure that the law does not have an exemption for “unless you lie well and hid the stuff”. Most disclosure laws demand compliance and have compulsory disclosure. I would expect F.O.I.A. to be the same, and that would likely make this a statement of intent to indulge in criminal activity.
Oh, and they may well find that their I.T. department has server backup procedures that make their ‘deletion’ cute, but ineffective. Or perhaps that ought to be “have found”…
The way to have “Safe Private Email” it to not send it.
Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
“David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you’ll already have.
This one cries out for a context setting. Is it sensitive? Or just a “did you get FOO that I sent to David Holland too?” A small ‘dig here’ for later.
1473 McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
Don’t know what EIR is. Clearly this is more attempting to thwart the intent of the F.O.I.A. law and collusion in that attempt. It also explains why F.O.I.A. requests are so slow to be processed. It is a tactic. This is painful to see, and as a moral person, to see folks in collusion to thwart the intent of the law, it would motivate toward a desire to set things right.
[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
Oh God. has to be well hidden is just NOT something you want to be explaining in court. It also shows some kind of collusion with folks inside the Department Of Energy.
Searching on that key in the rest of the email might be fruitful, or might not. That could be some of what is encrypted. IF there was no nefarious intent here, I would have expected to see the words “kept private” or “secured” or even “secret” (as things like “trade secrets” are legitimate). But “hidden” usually has a clandestine connotation. Even to the user.
This, too, cries out for more context, and a deeper search of the email thread. Frankly, just the F.O.I.A intent to thwart ought to justify a Special Investigator from Congress just to find out what these clowns have been doing with all the Tax Payer Money they have been given. I know Jones is in the UK, but he’s working with US Agencies and we’ve also seen that NOAA and the NSF send some of their money overseas. That the main funder is stated as the DOE is sufficient.
As a Yank, I really do get a bit of burn at the idea that U.S. Taxes are being used to fund some guy in the UK doing research… No offense to Brits (my Mum was one), but those tax dollars ought to be funding jobs in the USA. Period. Full stop.
We also need some context as to what kind of ‘station data’ they are talking about. Is that the US temperature station data? Or some other kind of station? Or are they just saying that the DOE who hands out the cash doesn’t care if The Team sits on the temperature station data (that NCDC has and collects?). It’s a BIG DIG HERE!!
Frankly, the whole tone of the thing just stinks.
At this point I’ve looked at all the excerpts put in the README by Foia. I think I’ve “got inside his head” a little bit. This is someone who was seeing all this crap, and it is crap, being done with Public Money. Deception, hiding, planning to thwart laws, collusion, diversion of public monies in support of private political agendas, manipulation of the Peer Review process.
At some point it becomes overwhelming (and I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed just looking at the README and a couple of random picks).
What do we see? Is it open and honest Science? Questing for unbiased truth?
IMHO, Not At All.
It is in furtherance of “Truth, Justice, and The American Way”?
IMHO, Not At All.
Is it just crying out for some Adult Supervision? You Betcha!
To me, it looks like a corrupt process from the core on out. A few folks are trying to do the right thing. They are raising issues (but seem a bit tepid about it – no slam on them, I’ve been in that situation. Where you speak the truth too loudly and you can’t pay the rent…). So they are trying to be Good Guys, but are confronted by a system where the folks at the center of the web have the power and are clearly willing to Do Whatever It Takes For The Cause.
That, bluntly, just sucks.
It is what we on the outside thought we saw. The folks on the inside will clearly have seen it. Folks “nearby” will have seen it too. Even random folks at ‘related sites’ will have seen some of this from time to time.
So was Foia one of those folks? Someone with a lot of CC: and BCC: emails? Were they someone on the police force who saw all this for some other reason? Perhaps the lawyer who was consulted a few times too often? Perhaps even someone on the F.O.I.A Compliance team or in the I.T. department? Or was it a System Cracker from the outside who broke in, snagged the goods, and bugged out? That the FTP server was ‘hit’ seems to be well attested. But by whom?
Frankly, I hope we never find out.
I see some patterns that I think let me make a good guess as to their identity. Things hidden in the negative spaces. But you know what? I’m not saying anything other than “I AM Spartacus”…
These emails went so far and wide, were collected in so many places and even placed onto an FTP server in preparation for an F.O.I.A release, a server that was none too secure, BTW, that IMHO it will not be possible to prosecute anyone even if the “goods” are found on their machine. As of now, the “goods” are on thousands of machines all over the planet. It will be necessary to show a chain of transit of the data; and if they had that they would be prosecuting by now.
What I can say is this:
What I’ve seen so far is about 100/5000 ths or 2% of this part of the Climategate emails. Based on that much alone, I would be morally stressed if I knew it were sitting on a vulnerable FTP server. Even if I were non-technical, I would likely seek out someone who did have the technical capacity to make known what kind of behaviour was being funded by Tax Payer Money. I would “do the right thing”, and just letting the F.O.I.A. be ignored and shredded by folks indulging in what is at best unethical behaviour is NOT the right thing. I would “blow the whistle”. Loudly.
I think that is exactly what Foia did. I wish him well.
The Future In Time
There are 5349 emails, per my window ( I have them unpacked now). Plus the attachments. This is “the gift that keeps on giving” and will for quite some time.
In two days, George and I have gotten through about 150 of them. I doubt either of us can keep up that pace. (At a minimum, I’m 3 planned postings on other things behind, one of them being my Trade Planning for Monday). Call it 100 / day, best case. That’s 54 days, every day. More likely, it’s 3 months. That is just for a ‘quick glance’. Figure over a year to get it properly set in context and things integrated. IF nothing else happens. But we know plenty else will happen.
That tells me that unless a lot more hands pitch in, pick a chunk, and evaluate them, it will be a very long time that some of this sits in The Undiscovered Country. I’ll provide the platform for folks to post what they find, but if you want to know what all is in there in less than year time scales, well, you too are needed to “Dig Here!”
Are YOU Spartacus, or not?
The emails are here: http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/