Changes

The following are some of the controversial [[ClimateGate]] emails, grouped by category, main source is the list at WattsUpWithThat.com[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/]. Key points are in bold:

The following are some of the controversial [[ClimateGate]] emails, grouped by category, main source is the list at WattsUpWithThat.com [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/]. Key points are in bold:

==Dendrochronology==

==Dendrochronology==

{{cquote|ddate: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:58:49 +100 from: hleusch@gwdg.de subject: Kelly-paper to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

{{cquote|ddate: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:58:49 +100 from: hleusch@gwdg.de subject: Kelly-paper to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

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- Von-Siebold-Str. 3a D-37075 Goettingen Phone: +49-551-3912153[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2002-climategate-email-to-keith-briffa.html]}}

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- Von-Siebold-Str. 3a D-37075 Goettingen Phone: +49-551-3912153 [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2002-climategate-email-to-keith-briffa.html]}}

{{cquote|The main point to make, one that Richard seems to be totally oblivious to, is that there is no evidence for loss of sensitivity prior to the 20th century in a large-scale NH sense like that seen in the 20th century. On the other hand, there is evidence that there was not a loss of sensitivity in a large-scale NH sense in my QSR paper (Fig. 6). I acknowledge the weakness in the data prior to about 1200, but even so the regional comparisons only show divergence between north and south in the 20th century, with none indicated during the putative MWP.  [Ed Cook]

{{cquote|The main point to make, one that Richard seems to be totally oblivious to, is that there is no evidence for loss of sensitivity prior to the 20th century in a large-scale NH sense like that seen in the 20th century. On the other hand, there is evidence that there was not a loss of sensitivity in a large-scale NH sense in my QSR paper (Fig. 6). I acknowledge the weakness in the data prior to about 1200, but even so the regional comparisons only show divergence between north and south in the 20th century, with none indicated during the putative MWP.  [Ed Cook]

...

...

As you probably know, I was originally invited to give a talk on The Topic (a scientific version of the The Troubles in Northern Ireland) that Rosanne gave before the NRC panel....I recommended that Keith give a talk to the NRC panel in my place because, in my estimation, he is the only other person in the world who can discuss in a totally objective way the hockystick and other reconstructions of past temperatures at the methodological level that is really at the heart of all the controversy, e.g. the hockeystick. [Ed Cook]

As you probably know, I was originally invited to give a talk on The Topic (a scientific version of the The Troubles in Northern Ireland) that Rosanne gave before the NRC panel....I recommended that Keith give a talk to the NRC panel in my place because, in my estimation, he is the only other person in the world who can discuss in a totally objective way the hockystick and other reconstructions of past temperatures at the methodological level that is really at the heart of all the controversy, e.g. the hockeystick. [Ed Cook]

...Peck--I almost sent this to Susan tonight, copied to you, but then thought I had better run it by you first, quickly. I think that Susan has to be notified--'''I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape, and that the IPCC and chapter 6 have a big problem coming up.''' I'll be in the office tomorrow if you want to call--814???--but I want to notify Susan soon.--Richard[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/uh-oh-has-real-problem-fear-that-tree.html]}}

...Peck--I almost sent this to Susan tonight, copied to you, but then thought I had better run it by you first, quickly. I think that Susan has to be notified--'''I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape, and that the IPCC and chapter 6 have a big problem coming up.''' I'll be in the office tomorrow if you want to call--814???--but I want to notify Susan soon.--Richard [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/uh-oh-has-real-problem-fear-that-tree.html]}}

{{cquote|5) I am not sure whether it is wise to add me to the CA list, just because the reviewer is supposed to be impartial and a CA loses that appearance of impartiality if he has now been included as a CA - may want to check with Susan S. on this one to be sure - still happy to provide advice  [Crowley]

{{cquote|5) I am not sure whether it is wise to add me to the CA list, just because the reviewer is supposed to be impartial and a CA loses that appearance of impartiality if he has now been included as a CA - may want to check with Susan S. on this one to be sure - still happy to provide advice  [Crowley]

{{cquote|date: Mon Nov 13 09:29:49 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Mitrie to: "Nanne Weber"

{{cquote|date: Mon Nov 13 09:29:49 2006 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Mitrie to: "Nanne Weber"

Between you and I , I believe '''there may be problems with the analysis of the Bristlecone data.''' We can talk by phone about this Keith[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-settled-science-keith-briffa-2006.html]}}

Between you and I , I believe '''there may be problems with the analysis of the Bristlecone data.''' We can talk by phone about this Keith [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-settled-science-keith-briffa-2006.html]}}

==Ice Cores==

==Ice Cores==

We had to remove the reference to "700 years in France" as I am not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. '''The use of "likely" , "very likely" and my additional fudge word "unusual" are all carefully chosen where used.''' [Keith Briffa, 2004]

We had to remove the reference to "700 years in France" as I am not sure what this is , and it is not in the text anyway. '''The use of "likely" , "very likely" and my additional fudge word "unusual" are all carefully chosen where used.''' [Keith Briffa, 2004]

Either the scale needs adjusting, or '''we need to fudge the figures'''... [Elaine Barrow, UEA, 2005][[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-emails-oh-fudge.html]]}}

Either the scale needs adjusting, or '''we need to fudge the figures'''... [Elaine Barrow, UEA, 2005][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-emails-oh-fudge.html]}}

==Coral Dating==

==Coral Dating==

503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663

The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@psu.edu

The Pennsylvania State University email: [3]mann@psu.edu

University Park, PA 16802-5013[4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm[http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-mann-says-true-temp-anomaly-not-known-well/]}}

University Park, PA 16802-5013[4]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm [http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-mann-says-true-temp-anomaly-not-known-well/]}}

==Global Warming Methodology==

==Global Warming Methodology==

{{cquote|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 f***-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty''' (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f***-all).[Ed Cook][http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/]}}

{{cquote|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 f***-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty''' (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f***-all).[Ed Cook][http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/the-contextual-collection-of-climategate-2-0-quotes/]}}

Hi Phil, [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ '''now has the final year removed if incomplete'''. Batten hatches and prepare for Skeptix! Mike

Hi Phil, [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ '''now has the final year removed if incomplete'''. Batten hatches and prepare for Skeptix! Mike

Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ??? School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ??? University of East Anglia Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/email-3288-mike-salmon-cru-temperature.html]}}

Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ??? School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ??? University of East Anglia Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/email-3288-mike-salmon-cru-temperature.html]}}

{{cquote|What has struck me is how different an impression one gets of the 20th century change if one puts one's finger over the war year results--just '''seems very suspicious, and my recollection is that you are already making some pretty large adjustments over that period to things like nighttime marine air temperature''' (due to more measurements being near the wheelhouse instead of at the bow of the ship, etc.). [Mike MacCracken]

{{cquote|What has struck me is how different an impression one gets of the 20th century change if one puts one's finger over the war year results--just '''seems very suspicious, and my recollection is that you are already making some pretty large adjustments over that period to things like nighttime marine air temperature''' (due to more measurements being near the wheelhouse instead of at the bow of the ship, etc.). [Mike MacCracken]

...

...

[Peter Thorne] There is little effective communication in the main text of the uncertainty that is inherent in these measures due to the poor quality of the underlying data and metadata and to the choices made - "structural uncertainty". It seems that a decision has been made that RSS and the Fu et al. method are "right" or at least "most right" and this is what we will put forward as gospel truth almost. Other datasets are given a cursory once over almost. This completely ignores legitimate concerns that "structural uncertainty" is large aloft - seemingly reasonable choices made as to how you homogenise and then analyse the data can have very large effects. This is not at all clearly communicated in the current draft.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2005-ipcc-reviewer-peter-thorne-writes.html]}}

[Peter Thorne] There is little effective communication in the main text of the uncertainty that is inherent in these measures due to the poor quality of the underlying data and metadata and to the choices made - "structural uncertainty". It seems that a decision has been made that RSS and the Fu et al. method are "right" or at least "most right" and this is what we will put forward as gospel truth almost. Other datasets are given a cursory once over almost. This completely ignores legitimate concerns that "structural uncertainty" is large aloft - seemingly reasonable choices made as to how you homogenise and then analyse the data can have very large effects. This is not at all clearly communicated in the current draft.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2005-ipcc-reviewer-peter-thorne-writes.html]}}

{{cquote|'''FOI is causing us a lot of problems in CRU''' and even more for Dave, as he has to respond to them all. '''It would be good if UEA went along with any other Universities who might be lobbying to remove academic research activities from FOI.''' FOI is having an impact on my research productivity. I also write references for people leaving CRU, students and others. If I have to write a poor one, I make sure I get the truth to the recipient in a phone call. I'm also much less helpful responding to members of the public who email CRU regularly than I was 2-3 years ago. I've seen some of what I considered private and frank emails appear on websites. '''Issue here is blogsites have allowed these climate change deniers to find one another around the world.''' Cheers Phil[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/email-856-phil-jones-is-causing-us-lot.html]}}

{{cquote|'''FOI is causing us a lot of problems in CRU''' and even more for Dave, as he has to respond to them all. '''It would be good if UEA went along with any other Universities who might be lobbying to remove academic research activities from FOI.''' FOI is having an impact on my research productivity. I also write references for people leaving CRU, students and others. If I have to write a poor one, I make sure I get the truth to the recipient in a phone call. I'm also much less helpful responding to members of the public who email CRU regularly than I was 2-3 years ago. I've seen some of what I considered private and frank emails appear on websites. '''Issue here is blogsites have allowed these climate change deniers to find one another around the world.''' Cheers Phil [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/email-856-phil-jones-is-causing-us-lot.html]}}

{{cquote|From: Phil Jones To: "Tas van Ommen" Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18 Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004 Cc: ???@virginia.edu

{{cquote|From: Phil Jones To: "Tas van Ommen" Subject: Re: FW: Law Dome O18 Date: Mon Feb 9 09:23:43 2004 Cc: ???@virginia.edu

Cheers

Cheers

Phil[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-2_8905.html]}}

Phil [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-2_8905.html]}}

{{cquote|It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go -- complex and wordy responses will be counter productive). But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And '''how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?''' Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of. And '''the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.''' I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. '''I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.''' Tom.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2009-tom-wigley-to-phil-jones-does-seem.html]}}

{{cquote|It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go -- complex and wordy responses will be counter productive). But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And '''how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?''' Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of. And '''the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.''' I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. '''I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.''' Tom.[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2009-tom-wigley-to-phil-jones-does-seem.html]}}

{{cquote|They've [McKitrick et al] been making threats against NSF about supposed data policies and even against Ray, Tom Crowley, and others too, claiming that they have a right to all of our data and computer programs (the hubris!). Confidentially, '''NSF lawyers have found their threats baseless as well as obnoxious, and will be telling them formally that NSF policy in no way legally requires funded scientists to provided their data (let alone computer codes!) for public access, but scientists are *encouraged* to provide their data. NSF will be telling them to stop pestering them.''' I'm forwarding a formal email (based on numerous informal discussion w/ Dave Verardo) to NSF, which is confidential (!), that provides some more information.... As we all know, we had made all of our data available previously, so the accusations by these bozos are baselss, though we agree that we would have given more care to the completeness of documentation had we known a stunt like this was to be pulled by the contrarians..[Michael Mann][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2003-mann-policy-in-no-way-legally.html]}}

{{cquote|They've [McKitrick et al] been making threats against NSF about supposed data policies and even against Ray, Tom Crowley, and others too, claiming that they have a right to all of our data and computer programs (the hubris!). Confidentially, '''NSF lawyers have found their threats baseless as well as obnoxious, and will be telling them formally that NSF policy in no way legally requires funded scientists to provided their data (let alone computer codes!) for public access, but scientists are *encouraged* to provide their data. NSF will be telling them to stop pestering them.''' I'm forwarding a formal email (based on numerous informal discussion w/ Dave Verardo) to NSF, which is confidential (!), that provides some more information.... As we all know, we had made all of our data available previously, so the accusations by these bozos are baselss, though we agree that we would have given more care to the completeness of documentation had we known a stunt like this was to be pulled by the contrarians..[Michael Mann][http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2003-mann-policy-in-no-way-legally.html]}}

Cheers

Cheers

Phil[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2007-phil-jones-do-now-wish-i-never.html]}}

Phil [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/2007-phil-jones-do-now-wish-i-never.html]}}

==Ethics Breaches==

==Ethics Breaches==

{{cquote|[2009 email, Mike Mann to Phil Jones] On a completely unrelated note, '''I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year''' ;) '''I've looked over the current list of AGU fellows''', and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) '''who aren't as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate.''' anyway, I don't want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you'd be willing to help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year. looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry's choosing ;) mike[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/i-scratched-your-back-you-scratch-mine.html]}}

{{cquote|[2009 email, Mike Mann to Phil Jones] On a completely unrelated note, '''I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem w/ some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor this year''' ;) '''I've looked over the current list of AGU fellows''', and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) '''who aren't as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate.''' anyway, I don't want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you'd be willing to help organize,I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year. looking forward to catching up w/ you sometime soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry's choosing ;) mike [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/i-scratched-your-back-you-scratch-mine.html]}}

{{cquote|BUT this must be done calmly , and in the meantime a restrained statement but out saying we have full confidence in Mike's objectivity and independence - which we can not say of the sceptics.

{{cquote|BUT this must be done calmly , and in the meantime a restrained statement but out saying we have full confidence in Mike's objectivity and independence - which we can not say of the sceptics.

In fact I am moved tomorrow to contact Nature and urge them to do an editorial on this . The political machinations in Washington should NOT dictate the agenda or scheduling of the work - but some cool statement can be made saying we believe the "prats have really f***ed up someway" - and that the premature publication of their paper is reprehensible . Much of the detail in Mikes response though is not sensible (sorry Mike) and is rising to their bate. Keith At 11:55 AM 10/30/03 -0500, raymond s. bradley wrote:

In fact I am moved tomorrow to contact Nature and urge them to do an editorial on this . The political machinations in Washington should NOT dictate the agenda or scheduling of the work - but some cool statement can be made saying we believe the "prats have really f***ed up someway" - and that the premature publication of their paper is reprehensible . Much of the detail in Mikes response though is not sensible (sorry Mike) and is rising to their bate. Keith At 11:55 AM 10/30/03 -0500, raymond s. bradley wrote:

Tim, Phil, Keef: I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by "for" and "against" global warming proponents. However, '''if an "independent group" such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit", and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue'''... a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of control.....yesterday in the US Senate the debate opened on the McCain-Lieberman bill to control CO2 emissions from power plants. Sen Inhofe stood up & showed the M & M figure and stated that Mann et al--& the IPCC assessment --was now disproven and so there was no reason to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how many times a "scientific" paper gets reported on in the Senate 3 days after it is published.... Ray[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/yipes-as-climate-hoax-insiders-struggle.html]}}

Tim, Phil, Keef: I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by "for" and "against" global warming proponents. However, '''if an "independent group" such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit", and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue'''... a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of control.....yesterday in the US Senate the debate opened on the McCain-Lieberman bill to control CO2 emissions from power plants. Sen Inhofe stood up & showed the M & M figure and stated that Mann et al--& the IPCC assessment --was now disproven and so there was no reason to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how many times a "scientific" paper gets reported on in the Senate 3 days after it is published.... Ray [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/yipes-as-climate-hoax-insiders-struggle.html]}}

{{cquote|'''Sexing-up evidence is so easy to do, isn't it? Reading your letter in the EDP today makes me wonder who your source inside the Tyndall Centre was supplying you with such exaggerated evidence? Surely  it wasn't me, was it?''' Treating Dick Lindzen with the esteem of flat- earthers; could this claim have been inserted by politicians seeking to make a dramatic point to their audience? Or was it really what the experts in the Tyndall Centre think? Perhaps we need an enquiry. Don't worry - '''I'm not thinking of committing suicide should I be exposed as the source of this story; but then again, it couldn't have been me, could it?''' I didn't say that after all; all I said was that we are well aware of Dick Lindzen and his arguments (in fact, Dick Lindzen is a pretty smart meteorologist who just takes a more cautious view of the scientific evidence for human causes of global warming; similar in caution in some ways to David Kelly even).

{{cquote|'''Sexing-up evidence is so easy to do, isn't it? Reading your letter in the EDP today makes me wonder who your source inside the Tyndall Centre was supplying you with such exaggerated evidence? Surely  it wasn't me, was it?''' Treating Dick Lindzen with the esteem of flat- earthers; could this claim have been inserted by politicians seeking to make a dramatic point to their audience? Or was it really what the experts in the Tyndall Centre think? Perhaps we need an enquiry. Don't worry - '''I'm not thinking of committing suicide should I be exposed as the source of this story; but then again, it couldn't have been me, could it?''' I didn't say that after all; all I said was that we are well aware of Dick Lindzen and his arguments (in fact, Dick Lindzen is a pretty smart meteorologist who just takes a more cautious view of the scientific evidence for human causes of global warming; similar in caution in some ways to David Kelly even).

Yes, sexing-up is so easy to do. Be warned.

Yes, sexing-up is so easy to do. Be warned.

Mike[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/warmist-mike-hulme-evidence-is-so-easy.html]}}

Mike [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/warmist-mike-hulme-evidence-is-so-easy.html]}}

{{cquote|From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de> To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100 Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

{{cquote|From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de> To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100 Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de

Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November  is too late.  1.  We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news,  but in the week before Kyoto we should expect that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.  2.  '''If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it.'''  We should give them a few weeks to hear about it.  3.  If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement.  On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement  in the same week,  but on a diffeent day.  The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.

Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November  is too late.  1.  We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news,  but in the week before Kyoto we should expect that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.  2.  '''If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it.'''  We should give them a few weeks to hear about it.  3.  If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement.  On the other hand, it wouldn't be so bad to release the Statement  in the same week,  but on a diffeent day.  The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.

---------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo,  Director Center for Environmental Systems Research University of Kassel Kurt Wolters Strasse 3 D-34109 Kassel Germany[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/1997-email-to-uea-mike-hulme-good.html]}}

---- Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo,  Director Center for Environmental Systems Research University of Kassel Kurt Wolters Strasse 3 D-34109 Kassel Germany [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/11/1997-email-to-uea-mike-hulme-good.html]}}

==Censorship==

==Censorship==

{{cquote|'''We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you.''' Best, Annie...Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia

{{cquote|'''We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you.''' Best, Annie...Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, University of East Anglia

...'''Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness''' - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!' '''The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two at Anglia Ruskin and Oxford?''' I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues next week. Cheers Phil[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/phil-jones-2009-sonja-retired-i-am-lot.html]}}

...'''Since Sonja retired I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness''' - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it.... Every now and then people say to me sotto voce with some bemusement, 'and when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her...!' '''The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two at Anglia Ruskin and Oxford?''' I'm away tomorrow and Mon/Tues next week. Cheers Phil [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/phil-jones-2009-sonja-retired-i-am-lot.html]}}

{{cquote|[Santer] John Christy is not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure willing to thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not the"gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science.

{{cquote|[Santer] John Christy is not a good scientist. I'm not a religious man, but I'm sure willing to thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy is not the"gatekeeper" of what constitutes sound science.

submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,'''

submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute,'''

Thanks,

Thanks,

mike[http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2003-michael-mann-on-what-community.html]}}

mike [http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/12/2003-michael-mann-on-what-community.html]}}

{{cquote|[Phil Jones]Susan offered John Mitchell some advice, but that was all. '''She did get tough with McIntyre when he began requesting in press/submitted papers that were referred to in AR4 drafts - saying he couldn't do an adequate review without seeing them. He stopped once she threatened to remove him from the reviewer's list.'''

{{cquote|[Phil Jones]Susan offered John Mitchell some advice, but that was all. '''She did get tough with McIntyre when he began requesting in press/submitted papers that were referred to in AR4 drafts - saying he couldn't do an adequate review without seeing them. He stopped once she threatened to remove him from the reviewer's list.'''

---

---