This is not science the way we were told it works. This is not independent scientists working without conflicts of interest focusing on the data, submitting their results for independent assessment, being at arms length to the assessors and publishers. No this is real life story of the control of the press (Nature, Science and others), control of the editors and attacks on the non compliant ones, control of peer review, vilification of opponents work, manipulating political processes and controlling the narrative. This is a process where more of the ‘scientists’ energy is put into controlling their positions than seems is ever put into the science. And keep in mind these guys are on the government payroll and should be open and transparent in all their dealings.
This is also a story of a select group of individuals in positions of power paid for by the taxpayers, believing they are above reproach and cannot be wrong. This is about the religious fervor with which these global warming scientists banded together on group think to meet, plot and enact compliant acts of vilification against scientists whose studies threatened their work. There are few degrees of separation, if any between these so called scientists and the highest powers in many of the worlds nations. Additionally there is the menace of those in global governance aiding and abetting them. The following emails are almost a script for a movie on global warming eco elite’s subterfuge.
Bold mine, comments in red mine
Formatting removed to make it easier to read. You can read the original file here
Phil Jones, Mike Hulme, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Danny Harvey, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Robert wilby, Tom Karl , Steve Schneider, Tom Crowley, jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter”, “p.martens”, “peter.whetton”, “c.goodess” , “a.minns” , Wolfgang Cramer , “j.salinger” , “simon.torok” , Scott Rutherford, Neville Nicholls, Ray Bradley, Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, “Greg.Ayers”
date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: My turn
to:
HI Mark,
Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don’t wish to receive these correspondances…
Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments from other individuals as well–I’m not sure. I believe that the matter is in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any case, I’d be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.
I think that a response to “Climate Research” is not a good idea. Phil and I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don’t view as having passed peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz (Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well…
cheers,
mike
p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original distribution list.
At 09:27 AM 4/24/Mark Eakin wrote: At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be best to direct such a response. Some options are:
1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
3) A letter to OSTP
The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the best published approach.
A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured, critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’ methods. I agree with Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.
I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.
Cheers,
Mark
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Tom et al,
Thanks for comments–I see we’ve built up an impressive distribution list here!
This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in large, I agree w/ Tom’s comments (and those of Barrie’s as well). A number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process in this area (both with regard to empirical “climate reconstruction” and in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley’s Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece for /Science/ on the “Medieval Warm Period”. Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a scientific point of view, they are awful–that is certainly true. For example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard they applied for finding “a Medieval Warm Period” was that a particular proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the “20th century” (many of the proxy records don’t really even resolve the late 20th century!) could be used to define an “MWP” anywhere one might like to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a “MWP” that was “warmer than the 20th century” (a non-sequitur even from their awful paper!) (it is worth noting that …) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words don’t make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it weren’t the case that they’ve gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this appropriately, but without some external pressure).
So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC. Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the “Harvard” moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his crowd (the demonising of Murdoch begins, which is still being pursued by Gillard) , and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer viruses, I fear that “Climate Research” has become a hopelessly compromised vehicle in the skeptics’ (can we find a better word?) (yes denier was what they chose). disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I’ve seen (e.g. a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey and I’m sure there is much more) that a legitimate peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different nature–there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/ appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn’t see the light of the day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL–there is probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
best regards,
Mike
At 11:53 PM 4/23/Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear friends,
[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed]
I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea — although there are some unique things about this situation. Barrie says ….
(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’
to which I add ….
(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
____________________
Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, ppREDACTED 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRLREDACTEDREDACTEDHowever, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did in the above example — then this is an advantage.
_____________________________
There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut. Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on this?
_______________________________
There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be involved in writing a response.
The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GLREDACTED). I refereed a virtually identical paper for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research (vol. 23, ppREDACTED Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he responded saying …
The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper — deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
______________________________
This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
Soon, and so on).
The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.
The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through.
_______________________________
Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).
______________________________
Best wishes to all,
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail: Phone:770 FAX:137
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
325 Broadway E/CC23
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
It is worth noting on the science that far from being bad science
Who is who in the above emails – a cast of ….
Michael Mann – inventor or should one say the fabricator of the discredited hockey stick. Previously employed by Penn State. Currently under investigation for use of grants.
Mark Eakin – Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Phil Jones – UAE chief concedes “all our models are wrong“, refuses FOI requests, and has acknowledged there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
Mike Hulme – Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
Keith Briffa, Professor at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia asks colleagues to delete emails, discusses manipulating the data,
James Hansen, NASA astronomer turned climate ‘guru’ who is current financial scandal is how he is making over $1.5 million dollars of undeclared income on top of his government paid position,
Danny Harvey,
Ben Santer, Research scientist on climate models angry that climate skeptics arnt silenced, keeps moving the climate goalposts to suit his failed theories,
Kevin Trenberth, Senior Scientist NCAR. who said in October 2009 ” The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Robert Wilby, Professor of Hydroclimatic Modelling
Tom Karl ,
Steve Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University
Tom Crowley, Simon Shackley, Tim Carter, P Marten, Peter Whetton, C Goodes, A Minn, Wolfgang Crame, Jim Salinger CRSNZ NIWA, Simon Toro, Scott Rutherfor, Neville Nicholl, Ray Bradle, Mike MacCracke, Barrie Pittoc, Ellen Mosley-Thompso, Greg Ayers
Climategate ; Biased BBC ;
CSIRO clanger – “which representation of the results is appropriate to giving the best advice on what changes to expect”
Filed under: Governance, ALP, climate change, climategate, earth changes, Gillard, global governance, global warming, new world order, NWO, one world government, Rudd, subterfuge, Swan
