Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The CRUTEM code | Main | Fix it or fold it »

More Climategate 2

0109 Jones "I don't consider myself a public servant"

2402 Royal Society involved in circulating a letter of protest re the Great Global Warming Swindle

Marcel Crok quotes von Storch in 0555 "Stupid, politicized action by IPCC, not MBH’s responsbilkity". In same message, Simon Tett says "Beyond that the paleo community cannot do stats"

Anthony Watts notes that even the most fervent believers think Al Gore's claims about the melting snows of Kilimanjaro were nonsense.

Ross McKitrick notes that the IPCC instrumental temperature people can't do statistics either.

McIntyre notes that Mann has accused him of trying to hack into his systems.

McIntyre notes discussion of Mann trying different adjustments in order to get a good cross-validation score.

Mann starts the disinformation about McIntyre requesting an Excel file at the start of his work on the Hockey Stick. See also subsequent comment from McKitrick.

3419 Von Storch: First, I don't think that John Houghton is particularly qualified in saying anything about regional assessments. So far as I know he has no relevant official capacity in the process,and he has not been particulaly helpful in SAR. Actually, I consider him a politially intersted activitst and not as a scientist.

Climate Audit readers find that Prof Geoffrey Boulton's claim of having had no professional contact with CRU for twenty years ahead of the Russell inquiry was not true.

McIntyre notes a meeting between Boulton, UEA, the Met Office in order to prepare a briefing for Nicholas Stern.

0209 Hughes says paleoclimate datasets are too small.

5066 Hegerl: "using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing...
and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested. Slippery slope... "

4808 Mann discusses formal statement of no confidence in Climate Research re Soon and Baliunas paper. In same email

CSIRO and Tyndall communication managers would then think that a mass resignation would draw attention to the way such poor science gets into mainstream journals.

Pielke Jnr observers Trenberth and Jones discussing keeping a Pielke paper out of the IPCC report, apparently successfully.

McIntyre notes that Briffa couldn't get Mann's data too.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (53)

Richard Black's BBC article is now open for comments. Guardianistas have been swarming all over it using terms such as "contrarians", "neocon political activists", "evil Murdoch Corporation", "nutters", "Climategate conspirators" etc. Any comment which is even mildly sceptical has been marked down.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterJockdownsouth

As science itself sinks slowly in the west. Never mind statistics, they don't know how to do physics at all.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman

Again we see doubts being expressed in private about public statements on climate change.

Also we see that climate scientists lacked the neccessary statistical skills in handling data - bad practice was endemic.

The climate science community have never been open and honest about the science, and they have been driven along by environmental zealotry and partisan politics to perputrate a fraud on the public, namely CAGW.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

They seem to love each other, too:


Ok, thanks--see what I posted at [1]
I just read that Schellnhuber got an OBE!!!! I didn't know you got those for spouting
bullshit, but I guess that's how far standards have fallen. Pretty amazing...


I don't know Dai at all to say how he
handles possible criticism. I do know that Trenberth, his co-author, is extremely
defensive and combative when ever criticized about anything because he figures that he
is smarter than everyone else and virtually infallible. So at the start, if you do
contact Dai, do not include Trenberth in the communication. Let Dai sort that issue out

Keith indicated that you discovered a computational error in Dai's
program that produced unusually extreme PDSI values in some cases. (Has Dai and that
miserable prat Trenberth been told about this? As you might tell, I have genuine dislike
for that arrogant Kiwi)


Some samples of objective unbiased approaches:


... there are loads I've never heard of. Useful ones might be Baldwin,
Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue - on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), ...


The only thing about China is that rural isn't that rural by
western standards.


Nov 23, 2011 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterPatagon

Nice comment on Richard Black's post. ( How about it, Josh, just in time for Christmas....?)

H/T thefrogstar

There is enough material there to make a calendar for 2012. You know, the sort where you tear off one-day-at-a-time to reveal the next funny quote underneath.
For example:
"I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Mike’s Nature Trick and Hide The Decline explained by Phil Jones, Tue, 16 Nov 1999:

date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
from: Phil Jones
subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
to: ray bradley ,REDACTED, REDACTED

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.


Nov 23, 2011 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterphil

Can there be any doubt that Team members conspired to distort and control the Peer Review process? From email #4808:

date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:11:04 -0400
from: "Michael E. Mann" <REDACTED>
subject: Re: Climate Research and adequate peer review
to: Mike Hulme <REDACTED>

Dear Mike

Did anything ever come of this?

Clare Goodness was in touch w/ me indicating that she had discussed the matter w/ Von Storch, and that DeFrietas would be relieved of his position. However, I haven't heard anything.
A large segment of the community I've been in contact with feels that this event has already done its damage, allowing Baliunas and colleagues to attempt to impact U.S. governmental policy, w/ this new weapon in hand--the appearance of a legitimate peer-reviewed document challenging some core assertions of IPCC to wave in congress.
They appear to be making some headway in using this to influence U.S. policy, which makes our original discussions all the more pressing now.
In this context, it seems important that either Clare and Von Storch take imminent action on this, or else actions of the sort you had mentioned below should perhaps be strongly considered again.
Non-action or slow action here could be extremely damaging. I'll forward you some emails which will indicate the damage that the publication has already caused.
Thanks very much for all your help w/ this to date, and for anything additional you may beable to do in this regard to move this forward.

best regards,

At 06:47 PM 4/16/REDACTEDyou wrote:

Dear Co-Review Editor,
You may or may not have seen/read the article by Soon and Baliunas (from the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysics Lab) in the JanREDACTEDissue of CR (volREDACTEDA variant of this analysis has just been published in the journal Energy and Environment.
The authors/editor made a big media campaign to publicise this work, claiming it showed clearly the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century and that the IPCC (and other) analysis claiming the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium was plain wrong.
In the UK, the Sunday Telegraph ran the story. I have followed some email discussion about this amongst concerned paleoclimate experts here at UEA, in the USA and in Oz and NZ and their is overwhelming consensus that the Soon and Baliunas work is just crap science that should never be passed peer review (for a flavour see Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Barrie Pittock below).
These paleo-experts have decided it is not worth a formal scientific response since the story has not run that widely in the mass media (although is now used by sceptics of course to undermine good science) and that the science is so poor it is not worth a reply.
The CR editor concerned is Chris de Freitas and I have followed over the years papers in CR that he has been responsible for reviewing. [Wolfgang Cramer resigned from CR a few years ago over a similar concern over the way de Freitas managed the peer review process for a manuscript Wolfgang reviewd].
Whilst we do not know who reviewed the Soon/Baliunas manuscript, there is sufficient evidence in my view to justify a "loss of confidence" in the peer review process operated by the journal and hence a mass resignation of review editors may be warranted.
This is by no means a one-off - I could do the analysis of de Freitas's manuscripts if needbe.
I am contacting the seven of you since I know you well and believe you may also have similar concerns to me about the quality of climate change science and how that science is communicated to the public.
I would be interested in your views on this course of action - which was suggested in the first place my me, once I knew the strength of feeling amongst people like Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Tom Crowley, etc.
CSIRO and Tyndall communication managers would then think that a mass resignation would draw attention to the way such poor science gets into mainstream journals.
Of course, we would need to be sure of our case and to argue on grounds of poor conduct of peer review (I can forward a devastating critique of the Soon/Baliunas method from Barrie Pittock if you wish) rather than on disagreeable content of one manuscript.
CR does of course publish some good science, but the journal is not doing anyone a service by allowing crap science also to be published.

Thoughts please,


Dear all,

Phil relayed this message to me--this echos discussions that others of us here have had as well, and at Phil's request, I'm forwarding some of these (Phil seems to have deleted them). I am encouraged at the prospect of some sort of action being taken.
The "Energy and Environment" piece is an ad hominem attack against the work of several of us, and could be legally actionable, though I don't think its worth the effort.
But more problematic, in my mind, is the "Climate Research" piece which is a real challenge to the integrity of the peer-review processes in our field.
I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from "Climate Research" is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken.
A paper published there last year by a University of Virginia "colleague" of mine who shall remain nameless contained, to my amazement, an ad hominem attach against the climate modeling community, and the offending statement never should have seen the light of day (nor should have any of the several papers of his which have been published there in recent years, based on quality and honesty standards alone).
A formal statement of "loss of confidence" in the journal seems like an excellent idea.
It may or may not be useful for me to be directly involved in this, given that I am a primary object of attack by these folks. However, I'm happy to help in any way that I can, and please keep me in the loop.

best regards,
Mike Mann


Dear All,
There have been a number of emails on these two papers. They are bad. I'll be seeing Hans von Storch next week and I'll be telling him in person what a disservice he's doing to the science and the status of Climate Research.
I've already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the journal. Tom Crowley may be writing something - find out also next week, but at the EGS last week Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do nothing.
Papers that respond to work like this never get cited - a point I'm trying to get across to Hans.
We all have better papers to write than waste our time responding to drivel like this.


Phil Jones


Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such.
If a paper is contested by referees that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics, but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived.
On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with.
I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a reviewer.

Barrie Pittock.

Nov 23, 2011 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterBoudu

date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:18:02 +0100
from: Phil Jones
subject: Tomorrow’s EDP

FYI – might be worth looking at tomorrow’s EDP
Ian McEwan’s next novel will be on climate change deniers

From: “Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)”
To: “Jones Philip Prof (ENV)”
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:51:13 +0100
Subject: Today’s EDP
Thread-Topic: Today’s EDP
Thread-Index: AcoR1TRLi82IJwxgT0GHSJYUs5Da1g==
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2009 11:51:REDACTEDUTC) FILETIME=[35253EA0:01CA11D5]
On a lighter note, nice interview with Ian McEwan in today’s EDP which you might find
interesting. His latest book, Solar, is about climate change. Here’s the taster:
Best, Annie
Annie Ogden, Head of Communications,
University of East Anglia,
Norwich, NR4 7TJ.

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit TelephoneREDACTED3 592090
School of Environmental Sciences FaxREDACTED3 507784
University of East Anglia

Nov 23, 2011 at 11:32 AM | Unregistered Commenterphil

Why was Phil Jones sending out this email about carbon trading in 2000? See who got the email.

date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 08:12:39 +0100
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: The Carbon Trader - 12th Edition - "GORE'S US$79Billion GREEN POLICY"

>Reply-To: "Alistair R G Paton" <REDACTED>
>From: "Alistair R G Paton" <REDACTED>
>Cc: "Gary R Stewart" <REDACTED>,
>REDACTEDPublic Relations Division" <REDACTED>,
>REDACTEDRisk Management Division" <REDACTED>,
>REDACTEDLegal Services Division" <REDACTED>,
>REDACTEDFinancial Services Division"
>REDACTEDEvaluations Division" <REDACTED>,
>REDACTEDAuditing and Verification Division" <REDACTED>
>Subject: The Carbon Trader - 12th Edition - "GORE'S US$79Billion GREEN POLICY"
>Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 16:58:26 +1000
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE VREDACTED0
>REDACTEDREDACTEDth Edition of The Carbon Trader - weekly "the
>worlds leading reporter, library and commercial services intermediary
>within the emerging carbon trading market" was published this morning 3
>JulyREDACTEDth Edition free of charge
>edition we report on: Al Gore's US$79b Green Policy, World Bank's Green
>loans to Poland ($93m) and India ($130m), Concerns over Chinese Aluminium
>markets, Nuclear Power to be phased out by 2020, Norway's Energy Minister
>announces green agency, Senator Robert Hill press releases and many more
>must read articles. contact: REDACTED contact:
> REDACTED contact: REDACTED I hope
>you all enjoy the 12th Edition of and I again look
>forward to all your responses. Sincerely, Alistair R G Paton
>The Carbon Trader
>Level 4, 379 Pitt Street
>Sydney NSW Australia 2000
>e-mail: REDACTED
>REDACTED089 fax:REDACTED066 Attachment Converted:
>"c:eudoraattachAlistair R G Paton.vcf"
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit TelephoneREDACTEDREDACTED
School of Environmental Sciences FaxREDACTEDREDACTED
University of East AngliaREDACTEDREDACTED


Nov 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered Commenterphil

There is always one that gives you a good laugh even if the subject is terribly serious ...

<5131> Shukla/IGES:

["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

These ‘boys’ have obviously never met Oz's Kevin, Penny, Juliar and Greg!

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterfozonos


Phil Jones wrote:
>> Mike,
>REDACTEDCan you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
> Cheers
> Phil

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Blofeld

"...climate scientists lacked the neccessary statistical skills..": I'll say it again - by the standards of science, these people are a bunch of duds. Some of their rubbish wasn't originally crooked, you know - they were just being dim. Much of the crookedness has arisen subsequently in their attempts to hide their incompetence.

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

Phil Jones calls Christopher Monckton an idiot:

date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:01:REDACTEDMDT)
from: "Kevin Trenberth" <REDACTED>
subject: Re: A couple of things
to: "Phil Jones" <REDACTED>

Hi Phil
I am in DC at NRC mtg.
Poor reporting here too, even in Boulder. MOst just mentioned Gore, not
IPCC. Be nice to get a nice certificate. Wonder where the $ will go?
>> Kevin,
>REDACTEDJust sent an email to Martin and also Renate suggesting that
> when Patchy
> collects the prize in Oslo, IPCC gets it scanned and sent to all of us
> on
> AR4. We can then print it off, frame it and put it on a wall! They
> won't
> get it for ages. It might be worth a few more of us suggesting
> something like this.
> I know its for more than just AR4, but for all the Assessments, but
> they
> will only have these recent email lists.
>REDACTEDSecondly, next time you see Chris Landsea, maybe you can tell him
> he
> opted out the prize!
> All weekend op-ed pieces here were very begrudging in their praise
> for
> Al Gore. The award was for IPCC and Al Gore, which most also got wrong
> here.
> Also, some said it was from Sweden and not Norway. Reporting was quite
> poor.
> Finally, that idiot Lord Monckton or Brenchly, is making his own
> DVD, based
> on that awful Ch 4 program 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' !
> Hopefully soon
> Ofcom (the UK group who assesses complaints against programs) will have
> ruled
> on that program - which had many more errors than Al's DVD.
> Cheers
> Phil
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit TelephoneREDACTED3 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences FaxREDACTED3 507784
> University of East Anglia
> NR4 7TJ
> UK

Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
PO Box 3000
Boulder CO 80307

Nov 23, 2011 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterphil

A trick to hide.... or just a convenient standard practice....?

Those of you into the dendroclimatology literature may be able to pinpoint which paper the subject line refers to.

From Dr. Hanns Hubert Leuschner to keith Briffa in 4387.txt:

date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:58:49 +100
from: h***@***.**
subject: Kelly-paper
to: Keith Briffa

Keith, I now found the time to read the paper more carefully,
together with the figures. I think except of my basic critics (no
regard of replication) the results are astonishing good. The trick to
substract pdsi-values and to calculate significance in comparison to
the previous year does pretty nice hide the information how many of
the negative signature years in the 20th century had really been dry
years - at least in 1956 the opposite is true. However astonishing
interesting results, especially for me the 3-4 years ring widt
suppressions following cold winters which you explain by climatic
reasons and which I see as medium term reaction on damage in cold
winters. So - from my side no hints for changes in the hurry (this
week I am overbusy with an everyday course in Dendrochronology for
students) but the hope that we will one day find the time to repeat
the study a bit more carefully. Cheers Hubert
Dr. Hanns Hubert Leuschner
Univ. Goettingen
-Labor f. Dendrochronologie u. Dendroklimatologie-

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterEksperimentalfysiker

Minor point:

Mann concerned about The Great Global Warming Swindle, then in production, and contacts Monbiot:

"This has to do with a denialist-leaning documentary being filmed by
> Martin Durkin for Channel 4 TV in Britain. I saw that you had written
> about Durkin before in the Guardian, and was hoping that you might
> potentially have some interest in exposing this latest disinformation
> effort."

Monbiot replies:
"I'm intending to mention Durkin's latest tomfoolery in my column in
> the Guardian on Tuesday."

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

Guardianistas have been swarming all over it using terms such as "contrarians", "neocon political activists", "evil Murdoch Corporation", "nutters", "Climategate conspirators" etc.
Nov 23, 2011 at 10:40 AM | Jockdownsouth

One only has to look at the huge Troll attack over on Dellingpole to see that Monybots mob have been sent emails telling them to ATTACK! If it were not so obvious it would be outrageous but to be honest its been amusing seeing the same old stuff "cut and pasted" !Some are so busy they cannot even make their daily attack on our host!

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H


date: Fri Apr 26 16:35:35 2002
from: Mike Hulme
subject: talk title
to: jenkins_geoff

...... that suggests a good title for a popular talk on climate modelling: 'Climate models or Lara Croft: which is closer to reality?'

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

The "fossil fuel denial machine" in action

date: Thu Jul 13 09:11:00 2000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Mick and Shell
to: t.oriordan


I am meeting with Mick at 0915 next Tuesday to talk about his links with
Shell - and Tyndall dimension re. studentships, etc.

Are you here and can you join us?


Nov 23, 2011 at 1:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

Email 3244

from: "Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)" <REDACTED>
subject: RE: Parliamentary debate and temperature data
to: "Phil Jones" <REDACTED>

Ah. No decision has been made and now we are worried we are in warm
water over it from a misleading parliment perspective. At least it'll
speed a decision up one way or another.

Peter Thorne, Climate Research scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB.
telREDACTED86552 faxREDACTED85681
-----Original Message-----
Sent: 06 November 2009 13:46
To: Thorne, Peter (Climate Research)
Subject: Fwd: Parliamentary debate and temperature data

I take it this response in the House means that the emails will go
out fairly soon?!

I was asked about this question by someone at DECC on Tuesday and I
sent a reply which basically said what Joan Ruddock said. The question
did mention UEA as well as MOHC - or whatever Lilley called you.



>Subject: Parliamentary debate and temperature data
>Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:14:29 -0000
>From: "Jones, Gareth S (Climate Scientist)"
>To: "Evans, Dorothy" <REDACTED>,
>REDACTEDMitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science)"
>REDACTEDThorne, Peter (Climate Research)"


>John, Peter, Phil and Dorothy,
>Regarding claims of refusal to release station data used in near
>surface temperature records.
>Peter Thorne suggested I should let you know about a question made in
>parliament yesterday during the Copenhagen/climate debate and the
>response by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate
>Change - Joan Ruddock.
>Column 1052
>Peter Lilley :-
>"I hope that the Minister will tell us what is happening about the Met
>Office Hadley centre's refusal to publish the basic figures it has
>received from around the world that it uses to calculate its estimates
>of the rise in surface temperatures throughout the world."
>Column 1090
>Joan Ruddock :-
>"The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Met Office had not made data
>available, and we have taken steps to try to make that happen.
>The Met Office has written to all those who provided data to ask
>whether they will agree to release those data."
>Peter suggested that Ruddock may not have been quite right in her
>p.s. I heard the debate and am pretty sure that Lilley said
>"Meteorological office Hadley institute" not "Met Office Hadley

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered Commentermanwithastick

That was 2311.txt

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

This probably explains everything......0381.txt

date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:27:47 +0200
from: Sabine Wulfse <>
subject: Society for Human Population Control

The EFIEA secretariat received the following announcement/invitation:

You are invited to visit and join the Society for Human Population Control

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

I am biased over my current favorite. I think possibly P.B. will feel the same after the "discussions" over at the D.M> and D.T. in the comments. Yep, it just shows how expert the .... (self redacted due to having to resort to abuse) person was!


Nov 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

What is revealing is the close contacts that Team has with people like Harrabin, Monbiot, Romm, Revkin, etc; and how willing these people were in providing hit pieces on people like McIntyre, Durkin, etc, concerning criticism of Team members and their science in the journals and in the media.

This represents a conspiracy to discredit sceptics, quell dissent and to censor other viewpoints.

So it raises the question what journalist did Michael Mann have in mind when he saught to discredit Steve McIntyre?

Nov 23, 2011 at 1:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

......or, maybe this explains everything? 0754.txt

date: Thu, 20 May 2004 17:22:08 +0100
from: Malcolm Haylock
subject: cru outings
to: cru

Hi everyone,

Two CRU outings are planned for the following dates:

Go and see the film "The day after tomorrow" on Friday 11th June in
the afternoon.

The CRU summer outing on Wednesday July 28th.

Any objections to these dates?


Nov 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

It is amazing the Rent-A-Mob attitude displayed by the Team.

Not only do they in effect hire people to relay their message in friendly media outlets like Harrabin, but they also engage the Monbiots of this world to dish the dirt.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

I’ve added these emails (and docs) to my original foia archive. You can now search both together at

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrancisT

Take a peek at this.

Mar 2007 17:40:14 +0100
subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] should we, as a discipline, respond to Climate Audit

Dear forum,

I think that we (as a discipline) are facing 2 problems: the ignoring (McIntyre c.s.) and the panicking (Guardian, etc.) sides. I think we face the problem of uncertainty, which can be used by everybody in the way they want. The balance from the perspective of our discipline is that there is evidence that human-induced global warming is going on. However there is more.

- We cannot stop carbon emissions at once. We would induce a global civil war far worse than global warming itself.
- Reducing carbon emissions from just the climate change point of view is living in a non-real world: there is more. Fossil fuels are getting scarcer and thus more expensive. If we do not start changing our energy regime NOW, we will run into economical problems from shortage of fuels next to suspected global warming.
- Replacing fossil fuels by agriculturally produced oils will endanger food security in the world, we have to search for real alternatives.
- Cars driving on electricity will save the cities from pollution.
- Politicians like Al Gore are abusing the fear for global warming to get into power (while having a huge carbon footprint himself), as Bush abused the fear for muslim terrorism to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Fear is far more dangerous than the fact itself!
- American and European need for oil leads to imperialism and subsequent resistence (terrorism as they call it). Changing this dependence is crucial for world peace.
- Climate is a naturally varying system: what would we do if global warming was natural? It would be still as dangerous...
- The UK raised taxes on flights, e.g.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac


How peculiar (or not...) that Mann would describe a sceptic documentary as "disinformation", especially as hadn't been finished by then. When did the bearded tree ring counter and sediment record inverter become The Pope? The concept of fallibility, or even a simple 'more data, better data can prompt a change of view' doesn't seem to occur to the man(n).

I wonder how many of them are stuck in a rut of confirmation bias because they think their careers depend on it.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth


date: Wed May 12 12:17:51 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.xxxx
subject: Fwd: Jones and Mann (2004) Figure 4 Top Panel
to: mann@virginia.xxxx Scott Rutherford <srutherford@rwuxxxxxx

Mike and Scott,
If the figures below don't come out, they are McIntyre's versions of the series in the
W. N. American panel of Fig 4 of the RoG article and then ours (which he must have got
from a pdf). Just told him that the reason your MBH (back 200) differs is that we've
renormalised each series over 1751-1950. This look as though it will work.

In the light of his email I've just produced files for Figs 4, 6 and 7. I'm off
tomorrow -
basically until May 28. When I get back I'd like to add the Fig 3, 5 and 8 data and put
it all on the CRU web site.
I emailed Caspar, Hans and Tas to make sure all agree. Only Tas wanted his series
not to be there, so I've removed it and put his web page there instead. Attached a
couple of the files to show you what I've done. I'll remove the strings of missing data
some of the files where I can do this. I just printed the files from the plotting program
to give smoothed and unsmoothed (but after any manipulation as in Figs 4, 6 and 7)
series from 1 to 2000/1. I suggest for Fig 8 you do something similar - just give anoms
and smoothed anoms (i.e all wrt 1961-90).
I'll put up some text on the web site to say read the paper for anything else !

From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@xxxxx
To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@ueaxxxxx
Cc: "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@ueaxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Jones and Mann (2004) Figure 4 Top Panel
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:03:03 -0400

Dear Phil,
I have read your very interesting article in Review of Geophysics and was hoping that
you would be able to assist me in interpreting the top panel of Figure 4. I produced the
figure below (smoothed with a 50 year gaussian filter ends padded with mean values).
(I'm not concerned for now with end-effects of padding) For the MBH North American PC1,
I used the data at
The FTP site does not have a directory for BACKTO_200, but Mann and Jones (2003) said
that the PC1 was similar in the overlap period to the AD1000 PC1 so the same undoubtedly
applies a fortiori to the AD500 PC1. While the exercise successfully reproduced the
Jacoby, Briffa and Jasper series, the MBH PC1 is very different from that shown in
Figure 4. Mann et al. (1998) is cited as the source for the AD200 PC1, although this
series obviously does not appear in that publication. Can you provide information on the
calculation of the NOAMER PC1 illustrated in Jones and Mann(2004) and why it differs so
significantly from the series at Mann's FTP site? Regards, Steve McIntyre

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit


Nov 23, 2011 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

I'm amazed that they treat the film "The day after tomorrow" as though it is propaganda and not a sci-fi film. You can just imagine the film theatre filled with scientists munching popcorn and cheering as the tidal waves strike, whilst still being paid by the state, (shudder).

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Not sure the password has spread widely yet - if you want to open All.7z use "A miracle has happened." as the passphrase (as written, without the quotes). Be warned, it'll take a while to decompress.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterdave


cc: lempert@randxxx Daniel.Sarewitz@asuxxxx p.jones@ueaxxxxx shs@stanfordxxxxx, wmw@ucarxxxxxxx, jmahlman@ucarxxxxxxxxx, manabe@splash.princetonxxxxxxxx, m.hulme@ueaxxxxx, thomas.lowe@rmitxxxxxxx rsomerville@ucsdxxxxxxx, penner@umichxxxxxxx, cwunsch@mitxxxx wallace@atmos.xxxxx, jholdren@whrc.xxxx hjacoby@mit.xxxxxjhansen@giss.nasaxxxx pre@stanfordxxxx, pre@stanford.xxxxxxgschmidt@giss.nasaxxxxx
date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:08:13 -0500
from: Andy Revkin <anrevk@nytimesxxxxxxx
subject: Re: 'nonskeptic heretics' or the like
to: Ronald Prinn <rprinn@mitxxxxx

some blogging and my responses below, related to the 'climate middle' story (huffington and
grist essentially same. huffington response had to be abridged for space). something for
a key take-home point, please, is that this story was written mainly for the benefit of the
10s of millions of disengaged or doubtful or simply under-edcuated Americans out there for
whom it is NEWS that the only discourse now is among folks who believe human-forced climate
change is a huge problem. (as jim hansen said in my story, exclamation point included!)
the 'hotter' voices are doing their job well.
i'm doing mine.
and make sure you read today's piece by michael barbaro on Walmart and lightbulbs.

The New York Times / Environment

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

@ dave

no kidding?

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

For anyone that has not done so, click on the order by highest rating button at the top of the comments at the BBC page, highly amusing.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJabba the Cat

Phil really likes to keep his inbox tidy (2577.txt)

date: Thu Sep 25 15:24:48 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL: Response
to: "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)">


I've called Jo to say I'm happy with their response.
I'll also delete this email after I've sent it.
We've had a request for all our internal UEA emails
that have any bearing on the subject, so apologies for brevity.
See you in November!

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

I liked this one-- they obviously have high regard for each other, but the 2nd para's the killer. (extract from a longer e'mail.

08:32:11 -0400
from: Edward Cook <REDACTED>
subject: An idea to pass by you
to: Keith Briffa <REDACTED>

Hi Keith,

After the meeting in Norway, where I presented the Esper stuff as
described in the extended abstract I sent you, and hearing Bradley's
follow-up talk on how everybody but him has fucked up in
reconstructing past NH temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is
a bit of an overstatement on my part I must admit, but his air of
papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times), I have come
up with an idea that I want you to be involved in. Consider the
tentative title:

"Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are
The Greatest Uncertainties?"


Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all).

Nov 23, 2011 at 3:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterPalantir

Good bit.


08:50:31 -0500
from: Edward Cook <REDACTED>
subject: NINO3 SST recon
to: Keith Briffa <REDACTED>
I have taken a quick look at that deconstruction of the MBH paper by McIntyre and
McKitrick. They claim to show a number of errors in the data Mike used. I know that you and
Tim have worked with Mike's data as well. Did you find the same things? I'm just curious. I
don't plan on weighing in on this mess other than to suggest that Mike, Ray, and Malcolm
are living in glass houses when they criticize the Esper work in the way they do. One needs
to be very careful about criticizing the analyses of others because turn-around is fair
play and payback is a bitch. That is all I have to say.

Nov 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

I haven't noticed any reluctance to trumpet "hottest yesr ever" type stories from the met office.....1130.txt

date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:31:25 +0100
from: "Stott, Peter"
subject: Record breaking years
to: <p.jones@>

Hi Phil,

I did an interview for More or Less on Radio 4 today on global average temperatures. I hope
I didn't mess up too much - David was away so couldn't do it.

Apparently James Annan has made a bet with David Whitehouse that we will/won't have a
record breaking year by 2011 (including 2011). Problem with these records of course is that
we don't know the global average temperature that precisely, with uncertainties of order

So the question becomes whether we should be talking about record breaking years at all,
geiven that we're uncertain of the ranking order of the years, or at least trying to
communicate the uncertainties in the way we present these numbers a bit more. Anyway you
must have thought a fair bit about this !


Nov 23, 2011 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton


date: Mon Sep 17 10:07:46 2007
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@ueaxxxxx
subject: Fwd: RE: Wahl & Ammann AND Ammann & Wahl papers
to: t.m.melvin@ueaxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: RE: Wahl & Ammann AND Ammann & Wahl papers
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:34:11 -0400
Thread-Topic: Wahl & Ammann AND Ammann & Wahl papers
thread-index: AcZ9XVnGmRo/mcXeQ+an5Be9wUab+V49zQeQ
From: "Wahl, Eugene R" <wahle@alfredxxxxxxxx
To: "Jonathan Overpeck" <jto@u.arizonaxxxxxxxx
Cc: "Eystein Jansen" <eystein.jansen@geoxxxxxxxxx
"Keith Briffa" <k.briffa@ueaxxxxxxxx
Hello Peck, Eystein, Tim, Keith:
Please find attached the e-versions of the WA and AW papers re: the
"hockey-stick". These are now available as "to-come-in-print" articles
from Climatic Change. I believe the WA one was just loaded yesterday.
As I understand it, official "print" publication will be this November.
These versions HAVE gone through the author proof process, and thus I
anticipate no possibility of them being further changed before print
Note brief correspondence yesterday with Phil Jones re: proof-level
changes that were made to WA (copied below).
Peace, Gene
Dr. Eugene R. Wahl
Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies
Division of Environmental Studies and Geology
Alfred University
One Saxon Drive
Alfred, NY 14802
From: Wahl, Eugene R
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:44 PM
To: 'Phil Jones'; Caspar Ammann
Subject: RE: Wahl/Ammann
Hi Phil:
There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in the
final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper
that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three
additional pointers to the AW paper, changed references of a
Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other
very minor grammatical/structural things. I tried to keep all of this
to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good reference
structure. I imagine that MM will make the biggest issue about the very
existence of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in WA; but
that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW does a
good job of contextualizing the whole matter.
Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including
its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think his confidence is
warranted. That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite
Peace, Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Jones [[1]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann
Subject: Wahl/Ammann
Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's
online first, but comes up if you search.
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it
changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.
Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those
skeptics something
to amuse themselves with.<\b>

Nov 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

I say, well done gel! Spying on the enemy! 1408.txt

date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:43:00 -0000 (GMT)
from: C.Goodess
subject: cafe eavesdropping
to: k.briffa, t.osborn, p.jones

Dear all

Thought you might be interested to hear of my encounter this afternoon,
sitting anonymously (without name badge) in a cafe round the corner from
the AGU venue.

The two sitting at the next table turned out to be Stephen McIntyre (no
afiliation on his name badge) and Rob Wilson (Edinburgh). They were
talking so loudly it was difficult not to follow the conversation in full.
This included a critique of Mann, Moberg, von Storch, Wigley etc. etc and
most disturbingly a discussion of the peer review system. Tim and Keith
featured quite prominently in the latter!

It was tempting to reveal my identify - but more interesting to listen in
detail. I can tell you more next week!

BEst wishes Clare

Nov 23, 2011 at 4:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

One of my favourite trolls - yes it's BIGCITYLIB!
in email 1610

date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:36:11 -0300
from: BigCity Lib
subject: The McIntyre Silliness
to: <p.jones>

I am told that Mr. Briffa is sick and correspondence might be directed to you.
I assume the short answer to this:


is that legitimate proxies must match the modern record of warming as shown by the
observational record?

Anyway, if you would like to respond I write for The Mark News


and blog here:


usually about politics but also quite frequently about AGW issues. I can see that your
response is fairly broadly circulated.



Nov 23, 2011 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterSmallTownCon

lol...BCL was the troll on the AirVent yesterday for while...carefully using the "this is normal scientific behaviour" argument. They really do not see how stupid they sound when they use that defence.

However...was wodering whether the subject of this lovely little poison-pen letter from our Phil might be occasional contributor Jonathan Jones?

Nov 23, 2011 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes


That password "A miracle has happened." doesn't work for me. I've tried a few variants of it also without success

Nov 23, 2011 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrancisT

A torrent with all the mail on Piratebay:

No problem with overcrowded download sites.

Nov 23, 2011 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterMP

Others might know if Phil Jones has acknowledged in public that there were errors in "An Inconvenient Truth" (sic).

In slagging off The Great Warming Swindle in an email to Trenberth he mentions that it "had many more errors than Al's DVD" which obviously means that he thinks it had some at least.

> Finally, that idiot Lord Monckton or Brenchly, is making his own
> DVD, based
> on that awful Ch 4 program 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' !
> Hopefully soon
> Ofcom (the UK group who assesses complaints against programs) will have
> ruled
> on that program - which had many more errors than Al's DVD.
> Cheers
> Phil

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

"I've called Jo to say I'm happy with their response.
I'll also delete this email after I've sent it.
We've had a request for all our internal UEA emails
that have any bearing on the subject, so apologies for brevity."

Hush. Listen quietly. If you listen very carefully... you can hear the clank of cell doors.

P.S. Writing a short email... hmmmm. I'm not sure that the 'brevity' defence holds up in court. (Does he really think that short emails are easier to hide than long ones? I'm fascinated by the thought.)

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans


mike's reaction after learning about MM (GRL):

There is clearly a problem at GRL now. I don't know which editor is
allowing these papers in (Soon et al, now this one), but its clearly beyond our control.

Nov 23, 2011 at 8:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterJean S

re "0209 Hughes says paleoclimate datasets are too small."

This is IMHO especially significant:

<0209> [Ed Cook, to Mann]...If Malcolm's
> statement is correct, than ALL previous estimates of NH
> temperature over the past 1000 years are "perilous", especially
> before AD 1400 when the number of series available declines
> significantly in most records.

It seems very dicey or "perilous" for the science that the significant decline just happens to occur right at the end of the MWP, meaning it includes the entire MWP. I would say that drawing conclusions on the MWP based on tree rings is very perilous, indeed.

Hughes points out that

I would suggest that this problem probably cuts in closer to 1600 than 1400 in the several
published series. Therefore, I accept that everything we are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with considerable caution.

Hughes here sounds like a voice of sanity, which I appreciate in scientists. If the problem dates to near 1600 (clearly in his opinion well after 1500), "caution" re the MWP may be too mild a term. I would accept "suggestive" as to the tree-ring proxy data pre-1600, but not more solid than that. I would look to other proxies, rather than depend on dendro data.

This is nearly 10 years ago now. I wonder what weight dendro data is currently given for that period.

I would also want to ask if tree rings were in any way used to calibrate other proxies.

Nov 24, 2011 at 7:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Garcia

"All the focus from Susan Solomon, Jonathan Overpeck, and others on getting Wahl and Ammann published in time. Why was it so crucial to have a critique of Steve McIntyre in the IPCC report? And also, the comments critiquing McIntyre came from one of the authors of this critiquing paper. Is this the reason for the confidentiality?"

Comment posted to RealClimate just now. I think you could expand Caspar and the Jesus Paper a bit with the new stuff here.Jonathan Overpeck appears to be the point man, and we know Phil Jones was one of the reviewers.

Nov 24, 2011 at 8:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

0277 - The spectre of Big Oil is mentioned in passing halfway through the email

A Geoff Jenkins wrote in 2003

Re funding: we took $1M from a bunch of oil companies (inc EXXON) via IPIECA about 10 years ago. We used it to come up with the first estimate of the second indirect cooling effect of aerosol on predictions. I have to say that at no time did we come under any even slight pressure to get us to say or omit anything in papers we wrote. Of course in Soon's case they already knew where he stood, so I guess could be confident that he would use their money to come up with more sceptical stuff.

When Big Oil pays Geoff it's all fine. When Big Oil pays Soon it's all bad.

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>