Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

Original Filename: 1019513684.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
Date: Mon Apr 22 18:14:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: s.raper

Phil,
I can't quite see what all the fuss is about Watson - why should he be re-nominated
anyway? Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the CC issue is
more important for the South than for the North. Watson has perhaps thrown his weight
about too much in the past. The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why
not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with
energy and money, than natural science.
If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable
but to be honest is anyone really surprised? All these decisions about IPCC chairs and
co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA's support of Martin Parry for getting the
WGII nomination).
Mike
At 07:17 20/04/02 +0100, you wrote:

There is more on the BBC Sci/Tech web site.
Phil

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:24:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sarah Raper <s.raper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
You may not have seen this latest piece of politicalization by the
Bushies.
Tom.
*************************
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:00:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: "SSI Mailbox" <ssi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
******************* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ********************
ISSUE: Today - April 19, 2002, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) plenary voted for Dr. Rajendra
Pachauri as the sole chair of the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri, an
economist and engineer, will replace Dr. Robert Watson, an
atmospheric chemist, as chair of the IPCC. This outcome was
actively sought by the Bush Administration at the behest of
the most conservative elements of the fossil fuel industry.
This development threatens to undermine the scientific
credibility and integrity of the IPCC and may weaken the job
this extraordinary body has done to bring the world's
attention to one of the most pressing environmental
problems.
ACTION: Monitor your local paper and respond to news stories
with a letter-to-the-editor.
MAIN MESSAGE: Given the Bush Administration's consistent
opposition to climate change mitigation, it is especially
imperative at this time that the scientific community and
Dr. Pachauri work together to ensure that the IPCC remains a
strong and credible scientific process.
DEADLINE: As soon as possible after the story runs in your
paper -- preferably the same day but no later than a day or
two after.
******************************************
*** THE ISSUE ***
According to a report by Associated Press today (appended
below), Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was elected as Chair of the
IPCC at a plenary meeting in Geneva. As you would be aware
from our earlier SSI alerts of the past several weeks, this
follows on from intense lobbying of the US government by the
fossil fuel industry to remove Dr. Robert Watson as Chair.
Although reports from Geneva are still sketchy, our sources
on the ground tell us that there was intense behind-the-
scenes lobbying by Saudi Arabia, with assistance from Don
Pearlman -- a well known oil and gas lobbyist with strong
connections to industry-backed organizations opposed to
climate change mitigation. Through their maneuvering, the
co-chair compromise approach -- comprised of former chair
Dr. Robert Watson and Dr. Pachauri -- was not considered.
As a result of this election, there is considerable concern
in the climate science and environmental communities --
reinforced by the intensive lobbying from fossil fuel
interests on this decision -- that the Bush Administration's
lack of support for former IPCC Chair Dr. Robert Watson
signals a more general lack of support for the IPCC as a
credible international scientific assessment process that
provides governments with sound information on climate
science, impacts, and solutions.
By supporting Dr. Pachauri for primarily political purposes,
the Bush Administration has seriously threatened the
scientific credibility of the IPCC process. The conservative
fossil fuel interests should be exposed for their role in
influencing the US government's stance on this issue, and
the IPCC process must remain a scientifically credible and
non-politicized process.
The next IPCC Climate Change Assessment is due out in five
years, and it is the chair's role to oversee this complex
process. The scientific community's voice is important in
this issue to ensure that the IPCC process remains strong
under the leadership of Dr. Pachauri and that the Bush
Administration does not erode the effectiveness of this
important international body.
*** THE ACTION ***
-- Monitor your local paper and respond to news stories with
a letter-to-the-editor.
Information on how and to whom to submit a LTE is usually
found right on the Letters Page in your paper. Many papers
now accept letters via email. If you can't find the
information you need, simply call the paper and ask how to
go about submitting a letter in response to a recently
published article.
To increase the chances that your letter will be published,
do the following:
- keep it under 200 words and stay focused on one or two
main points you'd like to make;
- focus on a local angle, if possible, that adds something
new to the story that appeared in your paper;
- be sure to include your name, address, and daytime phone
number; the paper will contact you before printing your
letter; and
- submit the letter on the same day the story appears, if
possible.
[For additional help with writing an effective letter to the
editor, you may turn to the reference guide on the SSI
member page at <[1]http://www.ucsusa.org/ssimembers/index.html >.]
-- MAIN MESSAGE: Given the Bush Administration's consistent
opposition to climate change mitigation, it is especially
imperative at this time that the scientific community and
Dr. Pachauri work together to ensure that the IPCC remains a
strong and credible scientific process.
-- TIMING: Your letter to the editor should reach your paper
within a few days of the publication of the story to
increase the chances of it being published.
-- SPECIAL NOTE: If your paper did not carry the story at
all yet, send an LTE describing the story and emphasizing
that this issue is of great interest to the paper's
subscribers.
*** SUPPORTING MESSAGES ***
-- [Be sure to include a description of your scientific
expertise, your involvement with the IPCC process, or the
importance of the climate issue to your community.]
-- For the past 10 years, the IPCC's science has been the
foundation for sound policymaking on the climate issue. The
IPCC's unique intergovernmental approach to scientific
consensus has worked amazingly well but is now threatened.
-- It is disturbing that the Bush Administration sought and
received advice from the fossil fuel industry on the
leadership of an important scientific body such as the IPCC.
A politicized IPCC threatens the integrity and credibility
of the scientific process.
-- There are fears that it will now be easier for the US to
distance itself from the IPCC process. You may point out
that the US already rejected the Kyoto protocol last year.
-- It is vital that the scientific process for the next
Assessment Report (due out in another five years) not be
compromised so that the IPCC continues to produce sound
science on climate change.
-- The credibility of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report
(TAR) findings were strongly affirmed by the US National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), which published its supportive
report in response to President Bush's request for an
independent assessment on the state of climate science.
*** SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ***
-- Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri is an Indian engineer and
economist. Pachauri, formerly one of the five vice chairs of
the IPCC, is highly regarded but will be the first non-
atmospheric chemist as chair of the IPCC.
-- For more information on the ExxonMobil memo urging the
Bush Administration to remove Dr. Watson from his position
as IPCC Chair, please see
< [2]http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf >.
-- For information on the Saudi/Pearlman connection, see the
summary by Jeremy Leggett, author of "The Carbon War", at
< [3]http://www.carbonwar.com/ccchrono.html >.
-- IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was
established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations
Environment Programme and the World Meteorological
Organization for the purpose of assessing "the scientific,
technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change."
To date, the IPCC has issued three comprehensive
assessments. The first assessment report (FAR) was released
in 1990, the second assessment report (SAR) was released in
1996, and the third assessment report (TAR) was released in
2001. These assessments are based on "published and peer
reviewed scientific technical literature"
For more information see < [4]http://www.ipcc.ch >
******************
NOTE: Please send us an email message that tells us what
action you took. If you actually send a letter, please send
us a "blind copy." (A blind copy simply means that you do
not indicate anywhere on your letter that you are sending a
copy to us.) Send to: ssi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx or UCS, 2 Brattle
Square, Cambridge, MA 02xxx xxxx xxxx(attn. Jason Mathers).
CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS: Help us keep you posted! If your
email address will soon change, or if you'd like us to use a
different address, please let us know by sending a message
to ssi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx with your new address. Thanks!
***********
Associated Press
Fri Apr 19, 1:18 PM ET
U.S. scientist voted off international climate panel
By JONATHAN FOWLER, Associated Press Writer
GENEVA - A U.S. scientist was voted off an international
climate panel Friday following what campaigners claimed was
pressure from the oil industry and Washington.
Atmospheric scientist Robert Watson was seeking re-election
as head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
World Meteorological Organization (news - web sites)
spokeswoman Mo Lagarde said Watson was defeated by Indian
challenger Rajendra Pachauri. Some 76 countries supported
Pachauri, while 49 voted for Watson in the secret ballot,
she said.
Seven nations voted for Jose Goldemberg, a Brazilian (news -
web sites) who entered the race this week.
The WMO and the U.N. Environment Program jointly host the
IPCC's offices and organized the Geneva meeting.
Environmental groups have accused the administration of
President George W. Bush (news - web sites) of caving in to
a request from Exxon Mobil that it try to remove Watson, a
leading expert on global warming (news - web sites), because
he had consistently warned governments of the dangers of
climate change.
"The fossil fuel industry and the U.S. government will be
celebrating their success in kicking out Bob Watson, an
experienced scientist who understood that urgent action is
needed to tackle global climate change," said Kate Hampton,
international climate co-ordinator for British-based Friends
of the Earth (news - web sites). "The Bush administration
and its friends would rather shoot the messenger than listen
to the message," Hampton said in a statement.
The Swiss-based Worldwide Fund for Nature said it was
worried by the "apparent politicization" of the IPCC.
"WWF is concerned that oil and gas interests had too much to
say in the removal of Dr. Watson as chairman of what should
be an impartial, scientific body," said Jennifer Morgan,
Director of WWF's Climate Program.
But, Morgan said, the "IPCC is a vibrant group of scientists
and WWF looks forward to working closely with Dr. Pachauri
to protect the integrity of the IPCC and ensure that it
continues to produce sound science on climate change."
The U.S. State Department said earlier this month that it
would support Pachauri, who was the Indian government's
nominee, to become the next chair.
Two weeks ago, the Natural Resources Defense Council, a
Washington, D.C.-based environmental group, said the White
House's Council on Environmental Quality received a memo
from Exxon Mobil in February 2001 that asked, "Can Watson be
replaced now at the request of the U.S.?"
The memo, which the group said it obtained through the
Freedom of Information Act, also recommended that the
administration "restructure the U.S. attendance at upcoming
IPCC meetings to assure none of the Clinton/Gore proponents
are involved in any decisional activities."
U.S. officials were unavailable for comment.
Watson has been an outspoken proponent of the idea that
fossil fuel emissions contribute to rising global
temperatures. He has led the panel since 1996 and is also
the chief scientist of the World Bank (news - web sites).
Pachauri is an engineer and an economist and is the director
of the Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi, India.

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.ucsusa.org/ssimembers/index.html
2. http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf
3. http://www.carbonwar.com/ccchrono.html%A0
4. http://www.ipcc.ch/

Original Filename: 1107454306.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:xxx xxxx xxxx

Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb xxx xxxx xxxxand xxx xxxx xxxxand xxx xxxx xxxx(last in Chicago - on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:

Thanks Phil,
Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn't clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present--will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms--there will be many. I'm hoping they'll stand firm (I believe
they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)...
Will keep you updated on stuff...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
At 13:41 02/02/2005, you wrote:

Phil--thought I should let you know that its official now that I'll be moving to Penn
State next Fall.
I'll be in the Meteorology Dept. & Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and plan
to head up a center for "Earth System History" within the institute. Will keep you
updated,
Mike

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Phone: (4xxx xxxx xxxxFAX: (4xxx xxxx xxxx
[1]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

Original Filename: 1109021312.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>


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 !

X-Sender: f023@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +0000
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA

Subject: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: pressure grows on climate modellers to relase secret data
Thread-Index: AcUXiV64e/f3Ii8uQSa0X88pndSQgQAl2O1w
From: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "cambridge-conference" <cambridge-conference@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
CCNet 22/2xxx xxxx xxxxFebruary 2005
PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, Mr. Mann tried
to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which
he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a
retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods
have since grown.
--The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre
says is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his
data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his code. So this is what I
say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give up your
data, methods and code freely and with a smile on your face.
--Kevin Vranes, Science Policy, 18 February 2005
Mann's work doesn't meet that definition [of science], and those who use Mann's
curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of Pournelle's
Laws states "You can prove anything if you can make up your data." I will now add
another Pournelle's Law: "You can prove anything if you can keep your algorithms
secret."
--Jerry Pournelle, 18 February 2005
The time has come to question the IPCC's status as the near-monopoly source of
information and advice for its member governments. It is probably futile to propose
reform of the present IPCC process. Like most bureaucracies, it has too much momentum
and its institutional interests are too strong for anyone realistically to suppose
that it can assimilate more diverse points of view, even if more scientists and
economists were keen to join up. The rectitude and credibility of the IPCC could be
best improved not through reform, but through competition.
--Steven F. Hayward, The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
(1) HOCKEY STICK ON ICE
The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
(2) SCIENCE AND OPEN ALGORITHMS: "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING WITH SECRET DATA AND
ALGORITHMS"
Jerry Pournell, 18 February 2005
(3) OPEN SEASON ON HOCKEY AND PEER REVIEW
Science Policy, 18 February 2005
(4) CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: TIME FOR TEAM "B"?
The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
(5) BRING THE PROXIES UP TO DATE!
Climate Audit, 20 February 2005
(6) CARELESS SCIENCE COSTS LIVES
The Guardian, 18 February 2005
(7) RE: MORE TROUBLE FOR CLIMATE MODELS
Helen Krueger <hkrueger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
(8) HOW TO HANDLE ASTEROID 2004 MN4
Jens Kieffer-Olsen <dstdba@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
(9) AND FINALLY: EUROPE FURTHER FALLING BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
EU Observer, 10 February 2005
==================
(1) HOCKEY STICK ON ICE
The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
[1]http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB110869271828758608-IdjeoNmlah4n5yta4GHaqyIm4
,00.html
On Wednesday National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman canceled the season, and
we guess that's a loss. But this week also brought news of something else that's been
put on ice. We're talking about the "hockey stick."
Just so we're clear, this hockey stick isn't a sports implement; it's a scientific
graph. Back in the late 1990s, American geoscientist Michael Mann published a chart that
purported to show average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past
1,000 years. The chart showed relatively minor fluctuations in temperature over the
first 900 years, then a sharp and continuous rise over the past century, giving it a
hockey-stick shape.
Mr. Mann's chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body
of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by
a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually
arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the
cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann's hockey stick appears
five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on
global warming, which paved the way to this week's global ratification -- sans the U.S.,
Australia and China -- of the Kyoto Protocol.
Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998,
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a
Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and
six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.
Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and
amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of
Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis. Their conclusion: Mr.
Mann's work was riddled with "collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of
extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect
calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects." Once these
were corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data.
This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the Journal's Antonio
Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the
mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann
was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his
statistical methods have since grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada
(a government agency) notes that Mr. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey
sticks when there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as Berkeley's
Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center essentially agree.
We realize this may all seem like so much academic nonsense. Yet if there really was a
Medieval warm period (we draw no conclusions), it would cast some doubt on the
contention that our SUVs and air conditioners, rather than natural causes, are to blame
for apparent global warming.
There is also the not-so-small matter of the politicization of science: If climate
scientists feel their careers might be put at risk by questioning some orthodoxy, the
inevitable result will be bad science. It says something that it took two non-climate
scientists to bring Mr. Mann's errors to light.
But the important point is this: The world is being lobbied to place a huge economic bet
-- as much as $150 billion a year -- on the notion that man-made global warming is real.
Businesses are gearing up, at considerable cost, to deal with a new regulatory
environment; complex carbon-trading schemes are in the making. Shouldn't everyone look
very carefully, and honestly, at the science before we jump off this particular cliff?
Copyright 2005, The Wall Street Journal
=============
(2) SCIENCE AND OPEN ALGORITHMS: "YOU CAN PROVE ANYTHING WITH SECRET DATA AND
ALGORITHMS"
Jerry Pournell, 18 February 2005
[2]http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view349.html#hockeystick
Science and Open Algorithms: You can prove anything with secret data and algorithms.
There is a long piece on the global "hockey stick" in today's Wall Street Journal that
explains something I didn't understand: Mann, who generated the "hockey stick" curve
purporting to show that the last century was unique in all recorded history with its
sharp climb in temperature, has released neither the algorithm that generated his curve
nor the data on which it was based.
I had refrained from commenting on the "hockey stick" because I couldn't understand how
it was derived. I've done statistical analysis and prediction from uncertainty much of
my life. My first job in aerospace was as part of the Human Factors and Reliability
Group at Boeing, where we were expected to deal with such matters as predicting
component failures, and deriving maintenance schedules (replace it before it fails, but
not so long before it fails that the costs including the cost of the maintenance crew
and the costs of taking the airplane out of service are prohibitive) and other such
matters. I used to live with Incomplete Gamma Functions and other complex integrals; and
I could not for the life of me understand how Mann derived his famous curve. Now I know:
he hasn't told anyone. He says that telling people how he generated it would be
tantamount to giving in to his critics.
More on this after my walk, but the one thing we may conclude for sure is that this is
not science. His curve has been distributed as part of the Canadian government's
literature on why Canada supports Kyoto, and is said to have been influential in causing
the "Kyoto Consensus" so it is certainly effective propaganda; but IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Science deals with repeatability and openness. When I took Philosophy of Science from
Gustav Bergmann at the University of Iowa a very long time ago, our seminar came to a
one-sentence "practical definition" of science: Science is what you can put in a letter
to a colleague and he'll get the same results you did. Now I don't claim that as
original for it wasn't even me who came up with it in the seminar; but I do claim
Bergmann liked that formulation, and it certainly appealed to me, and I haven't seen a
better one-sentence practical definition of science. Mann's work doesn't meet that
definition, and those who use Mann's curve in their arguments are not making a
scientific argument.
One of Pournelle's Laws states "You can prove anything if you can make up your data." I
will now add another Pournelle's Law: "You can prove anything if you can keep your
algorithms secret."
=============
(3) OPEN SEASON ON HOCKEY AND PEER REVIEW
Science Policy, 18 February 2005
[3]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000355open_seaso
n_on_hocke.html
By Kevin Vranes
The recent 2/14 WSJ article ("Global Warring..." by Antonio Regaldo) addresses the
debate that most readers of this site are well familiar with: the Mann et al. hockey
stick. The WSJ is still asking - and trying to answer - the basic questions: hockey
stick or no hockey stick? But the background premise of the article, stated explicitly
and implicitly throughout, is that it was the hockey stick that led to Kyoto and other
climate policy. Is it?
I think it's fair to say that to all of us in the field of climatology, the notion that
Kyoto is based on the Mann curve is utter nonsense. If a climatologist, or a policy
advisor charged with knowing the science well enough to make astute recommendations to
his/her boss, relied solely on the Mann curve to prove definitively the existence of
anthropogenic warming, then we're in deeper trouble than anybody realizes. (This is
essentially what Stephan Ramstorf writes in a 1/27 RealClimate post.) And although it's
easy to believe that national and international policy can hinge on single graphs, I
hope we give policy makers more credit than that.
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and McIntyre says
is Mann's resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds his data, all
details of his statistical analysis, and his code. The WSJ's anecdotal treatment of the
subject goes toward confirming what I've been hearing for years in climatology circles
about not just Mann, but others collecting original climate data.
As concerns Mann himself, this is especially curious in light of the recent RealClimate
posts (link and link) in which Mann and Gavin Schmidt warn us about peer review and the
limits therein. Their point is essentially that peer review is limited and can be much
less than thorough. One assumes that they are talking about their own work as well as
McIntyre's, although they never state this. Mann and Schmidt go to great lengths in
their post to single out Geophysical Research Letters. Their post then seems a bit
ironic, as GRL is the journal in which the original Mann curve was published (1999, vol
26., issue 6, p. 759), an article which is now receiving much attention as being flawed
and under-reviewed. (For that matter, why does Table 1 in Mann et al. (1999) list many
chronologies in the Southern Hemisphere while the rest of the paper promotes a Northern
Hemisphere reconstruction? Legit or not, it's a confusing aspect of the paper that
should never have made it past peer review.)
Of their take on peer review, I couldn't agree more. In my experience, peer review is
often cursory at best. So this is what I say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep
concern over peer review: give up your data, methods and code freely and with a smile on
your face. That is real peer review. A 12 year-old hacker prodigy in her grandparents'
basement should have as much opportunity to check your work as a "semi-retired Toronto
minerals consultant." Those without three letters after their name can be every bit as
intellectually qualified, and will likely have the time for careful review that typical
academic reviewers find lacking.
Specious analysis of your work will be borne out by your colleagues, and will enter the
debate with every other original work. Your job is not to prevent your critics from
checking your work and potentially distorting it; your job is to continue to publish
insightful, detailed analyses of the data and let the community decide. You can be part
of the debate without seeming to hinder access to it.
===============
(4) CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: TIME FOR TEAM "B"?
The American Enterprise Institute, 15 February 2005
[4]http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21974/pub_detail.asp
By Steven F. Hayward
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is currently working on its fourth
assessment report. Despite the IPCC's noble intent to generate a scientific consensus, a
number of factors have compromised the research and drafting process, assuring that its
next assessment report will be just as controversial as previous reports in 1995 and
2001. Efforts to reform this large bureaucratic effort are unlikely to succeed. Perhaps
the time has come to consider competition as the means of checking the IPCC's monopoly
and generating more reliable climate science.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) moves toward the release of its
fourth assessment report (fourth AR) in 2007, the case of Chris Landsea offers in
microcosm an example of why the IPCC's findings are going to have credibility problems.
Last month Landsea, a climate change scientist with the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), resigned as a participant in the producing the
report. Landsea had been a chapter author and reviewer for the IPCC's second assessment
report in 1995 and the third in 2001, and he is a leading expert on hurricanes and
related extreme weather phenomena. He had signed on with the IPCC to update the state of
current knowledge on Atlantic hurricanes for the fourth report. In an open letter,
Landsea wrote that he could no longer in good conscience participate in a process that
is "being motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and is "scientifically unsound."[1]
Landsea's resignation was prompted by an all too familiar occurrence: The lead author of
the fourth AR's chapter on climate observations, Kevin Trenberth, participated in a
press conference that warned of increasing hurricane activity as a result of global
warming.[2] It is common to hear that man-made global warming represents the "consensus"
of science, yet the use of hurricanes and cyclones as a marker of global warming
represents a clear-cut case of the consensus being roundly ignored. Both the second and
third IPCC assessments concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record. Moreover, most climate models predict future warming will have only a
small effect--if any--on hurricane strength. "It is beyond me," Landsea wrote, "why my
colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane
activity has been due to global warming."[3] Landsea's critique goes beyond a fit of
pique at the abuse of his area of expertise. The IPCC, he believes, has become
thoroughly politicized, and is unresponsive to criticism. "When I have raised my
concerns to the IPCC leadership," Landsea wrote, "their response was simply to dismiss
my concerns."[4]
Landsea's frustration is not an isolated experience. MIT physicist Richard Lindzen,
another past IPCC author who is not participating in the fourth report, has written: "My
experiences over the past 16 years have led me to the discouraging conclusion that we
are dealing with the almost insoluble interaction of an iron triangle with an iron rice
bowl." (Lindzen's "iron triangle" consists of activists misusing science to get the
attention of the news media and politicians; the "iron rice bowl" is the parallel
phenomenon where scientists exploit the activists' alarm to increase research funding
and attention for the issue.[5]) And Dr. John Zillman, one of Australia's leading
climate scientists, is another ex-IPCC participant who believes the IPCC has become
"cast more in the model of supporting than informing policy development."[6]
And when the IPCC is not ignoring its responsible critics like Landsea and Lindzen, it
is demonizing them. Not long ago the IPCC's chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, compared
eco-skeptic Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler. "What is the difference between Lomborg's view of
humanity and Hitler's?" Pachauri asked in a Danish newspaper. "If you were to accept
Lomborg's way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing."[7] Lomborg's
sin was merely to follow the consensus practice of economists in applying a discount to
present costs for future benefits, and comparing the range of outcomes with other world
problems alongside climate change. It is hard to judge what is worse: Pachauri's
appalling judgment in resorting to reductio ad Hitlerum, or his abysmal ignorance of
basic economics. In either case, it is hard to have much confidence in the policy advice
the IPCC might have. [...]
Time for "Team B"?
The time has come to question the IPCC's status as the near-monopoly source of
information and advice for its member governments. It is probably futile to propose
reform of the present IPCC process. Like most bureaucracies, it has too much momentum
and its institutional interests are too strong for anyone realistically to suppose that
it can assimilate more diverse points of view, even if more scientists and economists
were keen to join up. The rectitude and credibility of the IPCC could be best improved
not through reform, but through competition....
FULL PAPER at [5]http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21974/pub_detail.asp
===========
(5) BRING THE PROXIES UP TO DATE!
Climate Audit, 20 February 2005
[6]http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89#more-89
Steve McIntyre
I will make here a very simple suggestion: if IPCC or others want to use "multiproxy"
reconstructions of world temperature for policy purposes, stop using data ending in 1980
and bring the proxies up-to-date. Let's see how they perform in the warm 1990s - which
should be an ideal period to show the merit of the proxies. I do not believe that any
responsible policy-maker can base policy, even in part, on the continued use of obsolete
data ending in 1980, when the costs of bringing the data up-to-date is inconsequential
compared to Kyoto costs.
I would appreciate comments on this note as I think that I will pursue the matter with
policymakers.
For example, in Mann's famous hockey stick graph, as presented to policymakers and to
the public, the graph used Mann's reconstruction from proxies up to 1980 and
instrumental temperatures (here, as in other similar studies, using Jones' more lurid
CRU surface history rather than the more moderate increases shown by satellite
measurements). Usually (but not always), a different color is used for the instrumental
portion, but, from a promotional point of view, the juxtaposition of the two series
achieves the desired promotional effect. (In mining promotions, where there is
considerable community experience with promotional graphics and statistics, securities
commission prohibit the adding together of proven ore reserves and inferred ore reserves
- a policy which deserves a little reflection in the context of IPCC studies).
Last week, a brand new multiproxy study by European scientists [Moberg et al., 2005] was
published in Nature. On the very day of publication, I received an email from a
prominent scientist telling me that Mann's hockeystick was yesterday's news, that the
"community" had now "moved on" and so should I. That the "community" had had no
opportunity to verify Moberg's results, however meritorious they may finally appear,
seemed to matter not at all.
If you look at the proxy portion of the new Moberg graphic, you see nothing that would
be problematic for opponents of the hockey stick: it shows a striking Medieval Warm
Period (MWP), a cold Little Ice Age and 20th century warming not quite reaching MWP
levels by 1979, when the proxy portion of the study ends. (I'm in the process of
examining the individual proxies and the Moberg reconstruction is not without its own
imperfections.) In the presentation to the public - see the figure in the Nature article
itself, once again, there is the infamous splice between reconstruction by proxy (up to
1980) and the instrumental record thereafter (once again Jones' CRU record, rather than
the satellite record).
One of the first question that occurs to any civilian becoming familiar with these
studies (and it was one of my first questions) is: what happens to the proxies after
1980? Given the presumed warmth of the 1990s, and especially 1998 (the "warmest year in
the millennium"), you'd think that the proxy values would be off the chart. In effect,
the last 25 years have provided an ideal opportunity to validate the usefulness of
proxies and, especially the opportunity to test the confidence intervals of these
studies, put forward with such assurance by the multiproxy proponents. What happens to
the proxies used in MBH99 or Moberg et al [2005] or Crowley and Lowery [2000] in the
1990s and, especially, 1998?
This question about proxies after 1980 was posed by a civilian to Mann in December at
realclimate. Mann replied:
Most reconstructions only extend through about 1980 because the vast majority of
tree-ring, coral, and ice core records currently available in the public domain do not
extend into the most recent decades. While paleoclimatologists are attempting to update
many important proxy records to the present, this is a costly, and labor-intensive
activity, often requiring expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy
equipment to difficult-to-reach locations (such as high-elevation or remote polar
sites). For historical reasons, many of the important records were obtained in the 1970s
and 1980s and have yet to be updated. [my bold]
Pause and think about this response. Think about the costs of Kyoto and then think again
about this answer. Think about the billions spent on climate research and then try to
explain to me why we need to rely on "important records" obtained in the 1970s. Far more
money has been spent on climate research in the last decade than in the 1970s. Why are
we still relying on obsolete proxy data?
As someone with actual experience in the mineral exploration business, which also
involves "expensive field campaigns that involve traveling with heavy equipment to
difficult-to-reach locations", I can assure readers that Mann's response cannot be
justified and is an embarrassment to the paleoclimate community. The more that I think
about it, the more outrageous is both the comment itself and the fact that no one seems
to have picked up on it.
It is even more outrageous when you look in detail at what is actually involved in
collecting the proxy data used in the medieval period in the key multiproxy studies. The
number of proxies used in MBH99 is from fewer than 40 sites (28 tree ring sites being
U.S. tree ring sites represented in 3 principal component series).
As to the time needed to update some of these tree ring sites, here is an excerpt from
Lamarche et al. [1984] on the collection of key tree ring cores from Sheep Mountain and
Campito Mountain, which are the most important indicators in the MBH reconstruction:
"D.A.G. [Graybill] and M.R.R. [Rose] collected tree ring samples at 3325 m on Mount
Jefferson, Toquima Range, Nevada and 11 August 1981. D.A.G. and M.R.R. collected samples
from 13 trees at Campito Mountain (3400 m) and from 15 trees at Sheep Mountain (3500 m)
on 31 October 1983."
Now to get to Campito Mountain and Sheep Mountain, they had to get to Bishop,
California, which is hardly "remote" even by Paris Hilton standards, and then proceed by
road to within a few hundred meters of the site, perhaps proceeding for some portion of
the journey on unpaved roads.
The picture below illustrates the taking of a tree ring core. While the equipment may
seem "heavy" to someone used only to desk work using computers, people in the mineral
exploration business would not regard this drill as being especially "heavy" and I
believe that people capable of operating such heavy equipment can be found, even in
out-of-the way places like Bishop, California. I apologize for the tone here, but it is
impossible for me not to be facetious.
There is only one relatively remote site in the entire MBH99 roster - the Quelccaya
glacier in Peru. Here, fortunately, the work is already done (although, needless to say,
it is not published.) This information was updated in 2003 by Lonnie Thompson and should
be adequate to update these series. With sufficient pressure from the U.S. National
Science Foundation, the data should be available expeditiously. (Given that Thompson has
not archived data from Dunde drilled in 1987, the need for pressure should not be
under-estimated.)
I realize that the rings need to be measured and that the field work is only a portion
of the effort involved. But updating 28 tree ring sites in the United States is not a
monumental enterprise nor would updating any of the other sites.
I've looked through lists of the proxies used in Jones et al. [1998], MBH99, Crowley and
Lowery [2000], Mann and Jones [2003], Moberg et al [2005] and see no obstacles to
bringing all these proxies up to date. The only sites that might take a little extra
time would be updating the Himalayan ice cores. Even here, it's possible that taking
very short cores or even pits would prove adequate for an update and this might prove
easier than one might be think. Be that as it may, any delays in updating the most
complicated location should not deter updating all the other locations.
As far as I'm concerned, this should be the first order of business for multiproxy
studies.
Whose responsibility is this? While the costs are trivial in the scheme of Kyoto, they
would still be a significant line item in the budget of a university department. I think
that the responsibility here lies with the U.S. National Science Foundation and its
equivalents in Canada and Europe. The responsibilities for collecting the proxy updates
could be divided up in a couple of emails and budgets established.
One other important aspect: right now the funding agencies fund academics to do the work
and are completely ineffective in ensuring prompt reporting. At best, academic practice
will tie up reporting of results until the publication of articles in an academic
journals, creating a delay right at the start. Even then, in cases like Thompson or
Jacoby, to whom I've referred elsewhere, the data may never be archived or only after
decades in the hands of the originator.
So here I would propose something more like what happens in a mineral exploration
program. When a company has drill results, it has to publish them through a press
release. It can't wait for academic reports or for its geologists to spin the results.
There's lots of time to spin afterwards. Good or bad - the results have to be made
public. The company has a little discretion so that it can release drill holes in
bunches and not every single drill hole, but the discretion can't build up too much
during an important program. Here I would insist that the proxy results be archived as
soon as they are produced - the academic reports and spin can come later. Since all
these sites have already been published, people are used to the proxies and the updates
will to a considerable extend speak for themselves.
What would I expect from such studies? Drill programs are usually a surprise and maybe
there's one here. My hunch is that the classic proxies will not show anywhere near as
"loud" a signal in the 1990s as is needed to make statements comparing the 1990s to the
Medieval Warm Period with any confidence at all. I've not surveyed proxies in the 1990s
(nor to my knowledge has anyone else), but I've started to look and many do not show the
expected "loud" signal e.g. some of the proxies posted up on this site such as Alaskan
tree rings, TTHH ring widths, and theories are starting to develop. But the discussions
so far do not explicit point out the effect of signal failure on the multiproxy
reconstruction project.
But this is only a hunch and the evidence could be otherwise. The point is this: there's
no need to speculate any further. It's time to bring the classic proxies up to date.
=============
(6) CARELESS SCIENCE COSTS LIVES
The Guardian, 18 February 2005
[7]http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1417224,00.html
Dick Taverne
In science, as in much of life, it is believed that you get what you pay for. According
to opinion polls, people do not trust scientists who work for industry because they only
care about profits, or government scientists because they suspect them of trying to
cover up the truth. Scientists who work for environmental NGOs are more highly regarded.
Because they are trying to save the planet, people are ready to believe that what they
say must be true. A House of Lords report, Science and Society, published in 2000,
agreed that motives matter. It argued that science and scientists are not value-free,
and therefore that scientists would command more trust "if they openly declare the
values that underpin their work".
It all sounds very plausible, but mostly it is wrong. Scientists with the best of
motives can produce bad science, just as scientists whose motives may be considered
suspect can produce good science. An obvious example of the first was Rachel Carson,
who, if not the patron saint, was at least the founding mother of modern
environmentalism. Her book The Silent Spring was an inspiring account of the damage
caused to our natural environment by the reckless spraying of pesticides, especially
DDT.
However, Carson also claimed that DDT caused cancer and liver damage, claims for which
there is no evidence but which led to an effective worldwide ban on the use of DDT that
is proving disastrous. Her motives were pure; the science was wrong. DDT is the most
effective agent ever invented for preventing insect-borne disease, which, according to
the US National Academy of Sciences and the WHO, prevented over 50 million human deaths
from malaria in about two decades. Although there is no evidence that DDT harms human
health, some NGOs still demand a worldwide ban for that reason. Careless science cost
lives.
Contrast the benefits that have resulted from the profit motive, a motive that is held
to be suspect by the public. Multinationals, chief villains in the demonology of
contemporary anti-capitalists, have developed antibiotics, vaccines that have eradicated
many diseases like smallpox and polio, genetically modified insulin for diabetics, and
plants such as GM insect-resistant cotton that have reduced the need for pesticides and
so increased the income and improved the health of millions of small cotton farmers. The
fact is that self-interest can benefit the public as effectively as philanthropy.
Motives are not irrelevant, and unselfish motives are rightly admired more than selfish
ones. There are numerous examples of misconduct by big companies, and we should examine
their claims critically and provide effective regulation to control abuses of power and
ensure the safety of their products. Equally, we should not uncritically accept the
claims of those who act from idealistic motives. NGOs inspired by the noble cause of
protecting our environment often become careless about evidence and exaggerate risks to
attract attention (and funds). Although every leading scientific academy has concluded
that GM crops are at least as safe as conventional foods, this does not stop Greenpeace
reiterating claims about the dangers of "Frankenfoods". Stephen Schneider, a
climatologist, publicly justified distortion of evidence: "Because we are not just
scientists but human beings as well ... we need to ... capture the public imagination
... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and
make little mention of any doubts we have."
But in the end motives are irrelevant to the validity of science. It does not matter if
a scientist wants to help mankind, get a new grant, win a Nobel prize or increase the
profits of her company. It does not matter whether a researcher works for Monsanto or
for Greenpeace. Results are no more to be trusted if the researcher declares his values
and confesses that he beats his wife, believes in God, or is an Arsenal supporter. What
matters is that the work has been peer-reviewed, that the findings are reproducible and
that they last. If they do, they are good science. If not, not. Science itself is
value-free. There are objective truths in science. We can now regard it as a fact that
the Earth goes rounds the sun and that Darwinism explains the evolution of species.
A look at the history of science makes it evident how irrelevant the values of
scientists are. Newton's passion for alchemy did not invalidate his discovery of the
laws of gravitation. To quote Professor Fox of Rutger's University: "How was it relevant
to Mendel's findings about peas that he was a white, European monk? They would have been
just as valid if Mendel had been a Spanish-speaking, lesbian atheist."

Original Filename: 1167961271.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: William M Connolley <wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: not so fast - an update
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 20:41:11 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Crowley <tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stefan Rahmstorf <rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, garidel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, David Archer <d-archer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Raymond P." <rtp1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Caspar Ammann wrote:
> check figure A9, there the 17th century is cold, and this is probably
> the curve that was used. In that case, then its Central England from Lamb.

Ah, you mean A9(d) (I thought you meant A9(a) for a bit). Yes, that looks pretty
similar to IPCC 1990. Though not identical - the scaling is different, but the
timing is similar.

-W.

> Caspar
>
>
> William M Connolley wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Phil Jones wrote:
> >
> >> The net is closing...
> >>
> >> National Research Council, US Committee for the Global Atmospheric
> >> Research Program, Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action,
> >> National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, (1975), appendix A.
> >>
> >> This book (Fig A2b) has the same figure as Imbrie/Imbrie. It is rotated.
> >> It also has the same concept of the IPCC 1990 Figure, changes on
> >> various timescales - all rotated. Loads of Lamb diagrams I have
> >> seen countless times before.
> >>
> >
> > ? The source for IPCC can't be the 1975 NAS report. That fig is relatively warm
> > about 1600; the IPCC '90 figure is cold then. And as noted the "MWP" is colder
> > than 1950. But NAS 75 is the same as I+I, true (they both source to Lamb 69).
> >
> > Incidentally my I+I says copyright 1979, seventh printing 1998.
> >
> > -W.
> >
> > William M Connolley | wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
> > Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (012xxx xxxx xxxx
> >
> > --
> > This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject
> > to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
> > reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
> > the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
> > records management system.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Caspar M. Ammann
> National Center for Atmospheric Research
> Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology
> 1850 Table Mesa Drive
> Boulder, CO 80xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx tel: xxx xxxx xxxxfax: xxx xxxx xxxx
>

William M Connolley | wmc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | (012xxx xxxx xxxx

--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
records management system.

Original Filename: 1226451442.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:57:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Karen Owen <Karen.Owen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sharon Leduc <Sharon.Leduc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Tom,

Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1),
no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was
"sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
employees between 2006 and October 2008".

As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in
the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper
are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are
sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit.
Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and
synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the
very purpose of an audit.

I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our
calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data.
Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU
temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually
identical to our own.

McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these
monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et
al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know
how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA
co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante)
probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of
our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December
2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I
have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a
"start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.

My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive
and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away
from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones
have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed
by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
explanations, etc., etc.

Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing
the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am
unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and
frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et
al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect
conclusions on the basis of that flawed test.

I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the
currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our
scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven
McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
send to our scientific colleagues.

In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to
send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the
primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely
available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the
future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should
not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.

I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine
how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive
from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.

I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my
immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE
headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in
charge of our paper at IJoC).

I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry
that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after
today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be
subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's
"ClimateAudit" website.

With best personal wishes,

Ben

Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
> FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties
> listed below including Ben.
>
> Thanks
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: FOI Request
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
> From: Steve McIntyre <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: FOIA@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> CC: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>
>
>
> Nov. 10, 2008
>
>
>
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>
> Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
>
> Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
>
> 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
>
> Room 10730
>
> Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
>
>
>
> Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
>
>
>
> Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
>
>
>
> This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
>
>
>
> Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
>
> the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA
> employees J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were
> co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47 runs
> of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series by
> Benjamin Santer and associates.
>
>
>
> I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me:
> (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models
> sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
> employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence
> concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other
> coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and
> October 2008.
>
>
>
> The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M.
> Free and T. R. Karl.
>
>
>
> In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the
> applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed
> publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made
> a invited presentations in 2006 to the National Research Council Panel
> on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to the
> Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and
> Commerce Committee.
>
>
>
> In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science
> Advisory Board

Original Filename: 1226456830.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:27:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Thomas.R.Karl" <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karen Owen <Karen.Owen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sharon Leduc <Sharon.Leduc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Hmmm. I note the following ,,,

"at which I can be contacted between 9 and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time"

Is this a 22 hour, or, for people with time machine, a negative 2 hour
window?

Joking aside, it seems as a matter of principle (albeit a principle yet
to be set by the courts) that provision of primary data sources that are
sufficient to reproduce the results of a scientific analysis is all that
is necessary under FOI.

It also seems that judgment of what correspondence is central to the
analysis can only be made by the persons involved. As a participant in
many of these inter-author communications, I do not recall any that
would give information not already contained in the published paper.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear Tom,
>
> Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under
> the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1),
> no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was
> "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA
> employees between 2006 and October 2008".
>
> As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him
> yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in
> the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper
> are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit
> us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are
> sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit.
> Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw
> model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and
> synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the
> very purpose of an audit.
>
> I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our
> calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data.
> Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU
> temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually
> identical to our own.
>
> McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these
> monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et
> al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know
> how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA
> co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante)
> probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of
> our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December
> 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I
> have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a
> "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.
>
> My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive
> and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
> justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre
> is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away
> from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones
> have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed
> by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
> explanations, etc., etc.
>
> Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing
> the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am
> unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and
> frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr.
> McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
> Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et
> al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect
> conclusions on the basis of that flawed test.
>
> I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
> Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
> scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
> has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the
> currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our
> scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven
> McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
> send to our scientific colleagues.
>
> In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of
> climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
> investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to
> send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the
> primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely
> available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the
> future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email
> correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should
> not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.
>
> I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine
> how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive
> from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
>
> I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my
> immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE
> headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in
> charge of our paper at IJoC).
>
> I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry
> that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after
> today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be
> subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's
> "ClimateAudit" website.
>
> With best personal wishes,
>
> Ben
>
> Thomas.R.Karl wrote:
>> FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties
>> listed below including Ben.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: FOI Request
>> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
>> From: Steve McIntyre <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>> To: FOIA@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
>> CC: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nov. 10, 2008
>>
>>
>>
>> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
>>
>> Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
>>
>> Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
>>
>> 1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
>>
>> Room 10730
>>
>> Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
>>
>>
>>
>> Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
>>
>>
>>
>> Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
>>
>> the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA
>> employees J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were
>> co-authors, reported on a statistical analysis of the output of 47
>> runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly time series
>> by Benjamin Santer and associates.
>>
>>
>>
>> I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me:
>> (1) any monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate
>> models sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to
>> NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any correspondence
>> concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other
>> coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and
>> October 2008.
>>
>>
>>
>> The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon,
>> M. Free and T. R. Karl.
>>
>>
>>
>> In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining
>> the applicability of any fees, you should know that I have 5
>> peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that I was a reviewer for
>> WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National
>> Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two
>> presentations to the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the
>> House Energy and Commerce Committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science
>> Advisory Board

Original Filename: 1226500291.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: [Fwd: FOI Request]
Date: Wed Nov 12 09:31:xxx xxxx xxxx

Ben,
Another point to discuss when you have your conference call - is
why don't they ask Douglass for all his data. It is essentially the same.
You can also think of all this positively - they think a few of us do really
important work, so they concentrate on what they think are the cutting edge
pieces of work.
I have a big review on paleo coming out soon in The Holocene - with 20+ others.
Won't be out till next year, but I can say for certain that it will feature strongly on
CA. Not too much they can request via FOI, but they will think of something. This
paper will explain where a Figure came from in the First IPCC Report - the infamous
one that Chris Folland put together on the last 1000 yeas. CA will say they found this out
- they had
a thread on it 9 months ago according to Gavin. I have the submission date of the article
and more detail though - to show we found out first.
Cheers
Phil
At 03:57 12/11/2008, you wrote:

Dear Tom,
Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under the Freedom of
Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1), no "monthly time series of
output from any of the 47 climate models" was "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of
Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008".
As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the
raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008 Santer et al. International
Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr.
McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper
are sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing Mr.
McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged
time series of surface temperatures and synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU]
temperatures) would defeat the very purpose of an audit.
I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our calculation of
synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data. Douglass et al. obtained "model
average" trends in synthetic MSU temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that
are virtually identical to our own.
McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these monthly time series
between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between
2006 and October 2008". I do not know how you intend to respond this second request. You
and three other NOAA co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John
Lanzante) probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of our
work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December 2007, following online
publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre's request for
email correspondence has a "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of
Douglass et al.
My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive and
unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or
explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy
to divert my attention and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike
Mann and Phil Jones have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be
followed by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
explanations, etc., etc.
Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious
scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am unwilling to waste more of my
time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme
irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et al. relied on a
seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of
that flawed test.
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and
his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the
nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific
discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to
conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre;
without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific
colleagues.
In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I
am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research.
As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since
all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to
him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide
McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about
these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground
bully.
I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and
LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that
such requests will be forthcoming.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my immediate
superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headquarters, and to Professor
Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of our paper at IJoC).
I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry that the tone of
this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today's events, I must assume that
any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on
McIntyre's "ClimateAudit" website.
With best personal wishes,
Ben
Thomas.R.Karl wrote:

FYI --- Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties listed below
including Ben.
Thanks
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FOI Request
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:02:xxx xxxx xxxx
From: Steve McIntyre <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: FOIA@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
CC: Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Nov. 10, 2008

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Public Reference Facility (OFA56)
Attn: NOAA FOIA Officer
1315 East West Highway (SSMC3)
Room 10730
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear NOAA FOIA Officer:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Santer et al, Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in
the tropical troposphere, (Int J Climatology, 2008), of which NOAA employees J. R.
Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R. Karl were co-authors, reported on a statistical
analysis of the output of 47 runs of climate models that had been collated into monthly
time series by Benjamin Santer and associates.

I request that a copy of the following NOAA records be provided to me: (1) any monthly
time series of output from any of the 47 climate models sent by Santer and/or other
coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008; (2) any
correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other
coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008.

The primary sources for NOAA records are J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free and T. R.
Karl.

In order to help to determine my status for purposes of determining the applicability of
any fees, you should know that I have 5 peer-reviewed publications on paleoclimate; that
I was a reviewer for WG1; that I made a invited presentations in 2006 to the National
Research Council Panel on Surface Temperature Reconstructions and two presentations to
the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee.

In addition, a previous FOI request was discussed by the NOAA Science Advisory Boards
Data Archiving and Access Requirements Working Group (DAARWG). [1]http:// www.
joss.ucar.edu/daarwg/may07/presentations/KarL_DAARWG_NOAAArchivepolify-v0514.pdf.

I believe a fee waiver is appropriate since the purpose of the request is academic
research, the information exists in digital format and the information should be easily
located by the primary sources.

I also include a telephone number (xxx xxxx xxxx) at which I can be contacted between 9
and 7 pm Eastern Daylight Time, if necessary, to discuss any aspect of my request.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

I ask that the FOI request be processed promptly as NOAA failed to send me a response to
the FOI request referred to above, for which Dr Karl apologized as follows:

due to a miscommunication between our office and our headquarters, the response was not
submitted to you. I deeply apologize for this oversight, and we have taken measures to
ensure this does not happen in the future.



Stephen McIntyre
25 Playter Blvd
Toronto, Ont M4K 2W1


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. http:///

Original Filename: 1229468467.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: FOIA request
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:01:xxx xxxx xxxx
Cc: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Goldstein <goldstein3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia <delarubia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hal Graboske <graboske1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cherry Murray <murray38@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Fulkerson <wfulk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Luca Delle Monache <ldm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hack, James J." <jhack@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, vladeckd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, miller21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Wehner <mfwehner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear Ben,

This is a good idea. However, will you give only tropical
(20N-20S) results? I urge you to give data for other zones
as well, viz, SH, NH, GL, 0-20N, 20-60N, 60-90N, 0-20S,
20-60S, 60-90S (plus 20N-20S). To have these numbers on
line would be of great benefit to the community. In other
words, although prompted by McIntyre's request, you will
actually be giving something to everyone.

Also, if you can give N3.4 SSTs and SOI data, this would be
an additional huge boon to the community.

For the data, what period will you cover. Although for our
paper we only use data from 1979 onwards, to give data for
the full 20th century runs would be of great benefit to all.
This, of course, raises the issue of drift. Even over 1979
to 1999 some models show appreciable drift. From memory we
did not account for this in our paper -- but it is an
important issue.

This is a lot of work -- but the benefits to the community
would be truly immense.

Finally, I think you need to formally get McIntyre to list
the 47 models that he wants the data for. The current request
is ambiguous -- or, at least, ill defined. I think it is
crucial for McIntyre to state specifically what he wants.
Even if we think we know what he wants, this is not good
enough -- FOIA requests must be clear, complete and
unambiguous. This, after all, is a legal issue, and no court
of law would accept anything less.

Tom.

++++++++++++++++++++

Ben Santer wrote:
> Dear co-authors,
>
> I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made
> a request to U.S. DOE Headquarters under the Freedom of Information Act
> (FOIA). McIntyre asked for "Monthly average T2LT values for the 47
> climate models (sic) as used to test the H1 hypothesis in Santer et al.,
> Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical
> troposphere". I was made aware of the FOIA request earlier this morning.
>
> McIntyre's request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear
> Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The requested
> records are to be provided to the "FOIA Point of Contact" (presumably at
> NNSA) by Dec. 22, 2008.
>
> McIntyre's request is poorly-formulated and misleading. As noted in the
> Santer et al. paper cited by McIntyre, we examined "a set of 49
> simulations of twentieth century climate change performed with 19
> different models". McIntyre confuses the number of 20th century
> realizations analyzed in our paper (49, not 47!) with the number of
> climate models used to generate those realizations (19). This very basic
> mistake does not inspire one with confidence about McIntyre's
> understanding of climate models, or his ability to undertake meaningful
> analysis of climate model results.
>
> Over the past several weeks, I've had a number of discussions about the
> "FOIA issue" with PCMDI's Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL
> colleagues, and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these
> discussions, I have decided to "publish" all of the climate model
> surface temperature time series and synthetic MSU time series (for the
> tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to
> upper-troposphere [T2]) that we used in our International Journal of
> Climatology (IJoC) paper. This will involve putting these datasets
> through an internal "Review and Release" procedure, and then placing the
> datasets on PCMDI's publicly-accessible website. The website will also
> provide information on how synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
> temperatures were calculated, anomaly definition, analysis periods, etc.
>
> After publication of the model data, we will inform the "FOIA Point of
> Contact" that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly
> available for bona fide scientific research.
>
> Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional
> misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others.
>
> By publishing the T2, T2LT, and surface temperature data, we will be
> providing far more than the "Monthly average T2LT values" mentioned in
> McIntyre's FOIA request to DOE. This will make it difficult for McIntyre
> to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the
> climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findings.
> All of the raw model output used in our IJoC paper are already available
> to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the
> algorithms required to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from raw
> model temperature data.
>
> I hope that "publication" of the synthetic MSU temperatures resolves
> this matter to the satisfaction of NNSA, DOE Headquarters, and LLNL.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Ben
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Benjamin D. Santer
> Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
> P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
> Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
> Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
> email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 1232064755.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Thorne, Peter" <peter.thorne@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leopold Haimberger <leopold.haimberger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Karl Taylor <taylor13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Lanzante <John.Lanzante@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Solomon <ssolomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Melissa Free <Melissa.Free@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter gleckler <gleckler1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Philip D. Jones'" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Klein <klein21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, carl mears <mears@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Nychka <nychka@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steven Sherwood <Steven.Sherwood@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Frank Wentz <frank.wentz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Data published
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:12:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "David C. Bader" <bader2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Goldstein <goldstein3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Pat Berge <berge1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Janet Tulk <tulk1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kathryn Craft Rogers <CraftRogers1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, George Miller <miller21@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tomas Diaz De La Rubia <delarubia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cherry Murray <murray38@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Doug Rotman <rotman1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Bamzai, Anjuli" <Anjuli.Bamzai@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Anthony Socci <socci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bud Ward <wardbud@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Peter U. Clark" <clarkp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael C. MacCracken" <mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Professor Glenn McGregor <g.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stott, Peter" <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Francis W. Zwiers'" <francis.zwiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Barnett <tbarnett-ul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Verardo, David J." <dverardo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Branko Kosovic <kosovic1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill Fulkerson <wfulk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Wehner <mfwehner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hal Graboske <graboske1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Guilderson <tguilderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Luca Delle Monache <ldm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Celine J. W. Bonfils" <bonfils2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Dean N. Williams" <williams13@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Charles Doutriaux <doutriaux1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Anne Stark <stark8@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
Dear coauthors of the Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology
paper (and other interested parties),

I have now publicly released the synthetic MSU tropical lower
tropospheric temperatures that were the subject of Mr. Stephen
McIntyre's request to the U.S. Dept. of Energy/National Nuclear Security
Agency under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I have also
released additional synthetic MSU temperatures which were not requested
by Mr. McIntyre. These synthetic MSU datasets are available on PCMDI's
publicly-accessible website. The link to the datasets is:

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/index.php

Technical information about the synthetic MSU datasets is provided in a
document entitled:

"Information regarding synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
temperatures calculated from CMIP-3 archive"

The link to the technical document is:

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/msu/MSU_doc.pdf

I hope that these datasets will prove useful for bona fide scientific
research, and will be employed for such purposes only.

I am also hopeful that after publication of these datasets, I will be
able to return to full-time research, unencumbered by further FOIA
requests from Mr. McIntyre. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre's FOIA requests
are for the purpose of harassing Government scientists, and not for the
purpose of improving our understanding of the nature and causes of
climate change.

I'd like to thank Dave Bader, Bill Goldstein, and Pat Berge for helping
me complete the process of reviewing, releasing, and publishing the
synthetic MSU datasets and the technical document. And thanks to all of
you for your support and encouragement over the past two months. It is
deeply appreciated.

With best regards,

Ben

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
FAX: (9xxx xxxx xxxx
email: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

</x-flowed>