Below we will highlight certain ClimateGate emails that demonstrate the bullying tactics certain scientists would use in order to prevent dissenting scientists from getting published. It will demonstrate the efforts of the ClimateGate team to hide their data and to delete other data, and it will also briefly talk a little about money.
Perhaps the most difficult part of this book will be selecting only a few ClimateGate emails to show you. There are over a thousand of them, and they are all worth a read. All of the emails are available to read on this book’s website:
theclimateconspiracy.com/files/climategate/FOIA/mail
BULLYING
Below we see an email from Phil Jones who has just received word that two astrophysicists, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, published a paper in Climate Research which concluded “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” Outraged, Jones writes:
“Colleagues,
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore it probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by (skeptics) Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something…
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A Climatic Research Unit person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.”
- Phil Jones
Clearly, Jones is threatening to never publish another paper in the journal again merely because they published a paper that was contrary to Jones’ ideological views. Keep in mind, that as Phil admitted, he has not even read the paper yet. He is not concerned if the paper is scientifically valid; he only cares if it supports his views or not.
Michael Mann replies to Phil Jones, planning out a course of damage control. Mann has not read the paper either, and yet he is already so upset by the fact it was published. Being the arrogant and paranoid scientist he is, Mann believes that skeptics have overtaken the journal Climate Research in order to get papers published.
Notice at the end, like Jones, Mann suggests blackballing the journal. They are literally trying to damage a journal merely because it published a single paper out of line with their views.
“Phil Jones,
The Soon and Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a “legitimate” peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility—that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Freitas; unfortunately, I think this group also includes a member of my own department… The skeptics appear to have staged a “coup” at Climate Research (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now it’s a mediocre journal with a definite “purpose”).
I told Mike MacCracken that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted—the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole…
It is pretty clear that the skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, …). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he’s an odd individual, and I’m not sure he isn’t himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and with Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon and Baliunas paper, that couldn’t get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…”
- Michael Mann
Phil Jones replies to Mann, stating that he would like to get a paper together which redefines the historical periods of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and then have all their colleagues sign it. Again, science does not work by a democracy. Science works based on facts. Jones is not concerned by the fact that none of their science supports the idea of an attenuated Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. He is solely interested in pushing his agenda on people. The science is irrelevant to him.
Michael Mann,
Can we not address the misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period and redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper, it should carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being done over the next few years.
- Phil Jones
Next we see an email from Tom Wigley in which he is upset because another paper skeptical of global warming was published. We see that Wigley believes that only his small group of climate scientists should be allowed to decide what is and what is not published.
In the last paragraph we see that Wigley clearly states that the skeptical scientists have “genuine scientific credentials,” but that they should not be allowed to publish in peer-reviewed journals merely because they do not agree with global warming dogma. Only in a religion would skepticism be heresy. Cleary, the peer-review process has been bastardized.
“Colleagues,
Danny Harvey and I refereed a paper by skeptic Pat Michaels and coworkers and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (de Freitas again!) and he responded, saying:
“The manuscript 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 manuscript 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.
I suspect that de Freitas 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 genuine 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.”
- Tom Wigley
The next day, Wigley plots a way to ensure no skeptical papers are further published in Climate Research. He is pushing his colleagues to start a smear campaign against Climate Research. Notice that he is not concerned if what he tells the journal is true or not, he only cares that they stop publishing papers that dissent from the idea of anthropogenic global warming.
“Colleagues,
Regarding Climate Research, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication of crap science “in order to stimulate debate”. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word “perceived” here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter—50+ people. Note that I am copying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get the editorial board members to resign will probably not work—we must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise the holes will eventually fill up with people (skeptics) like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that hurdle too.”
- Tom Wigley
Mann replies. We see him refer to the publication of a single skeptical paper as an “assault.” John Costella believes this demonstrates that Michael Mann has an inferiority complex and cannot bear to be criticized by an astrophysicist from Harvard.
“Colleagues,
This might all seem laughable, if 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 not without some external pressure).
Here, I tend to concur at least in spirit … 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 personal) 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, 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?) 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 Climate Research 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.”
- Michael Mann
In this next email from Mann we see that he is preparing a paper to debunk the Soon and Baliunas paper that previously upset him. I featured this email in the Medieval Warm Period chapter. Remember that Soon and Baliunas provided evidence that the current warm period is not unique, and that it was warmer in the past. This runs contrary to the global warming hypothesis, which maintains that our current warmth is unique in all of history. Mann is now trying to publish a paper to get rid of the warmth of the MWP.
Colleagues,
I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2000 years, rather than the usual 1000 years, addresses a good earlier point that Jonathan Overpeck made … that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”, even if we don’t yet have data available that far back.
- Michael Mann
We need to realize, again, how much this has bastardized science. Someone published a paper that was not inline with the views of a few scientists, so they respond by launching an attack on the journal, and they go as far as to write an entire paper in an attempt to prove them wrong. They are no longer doing science for the sake of improving human knowledge; they are merely trying to push their global warming dogma on the world. They are performing revenge science.
About a month later, the director of Climate Research emailed the complaining scientists:
Colleagues,
In my 20 June 2003 email to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask Climate Research editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’ evaluations for the two Soon and coworker papers. I have received and studied the material requested. Conclusions:
1) The reviewers consulted (four for each manuscript) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful evaluations.
2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions.
3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
- Otto Kinne, Climate Research
The ClimateGate scientists, defeated, again threaten to blackball the journal:
“It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and probably supports what de Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we have to go above him. I think that the community should, as Mike Hulme has previously suggested in this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels—reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute.” – Michael Mann
“I agree that Otto Kinne seems like he could be a Chris de Freitas clone. However, what would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell people to avoid the journal?” – Tom Wigley
“Based on Otto Kinne’s editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial decision-making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually publish a rebuttal to the Douglass and coworkers paper. We’ll publish this rebuttal in the Journal of Geophysical Research—not in Climate Research.” – Ben Santer
Moving on, we now find an email where a reporter from The Sunday Telegraph writes to Michael Mann and Phil Jones, asking them to clarify a few points in their most recent paper.
“Michael Mann and Phil Jones,
I’m putting together a piece on global warming, and I’ll be making reference to your paper in Geophysical Research Letters with Prof Jones on “Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia”.
When the paper came out, some critics argued that the paper actually showed that there have been three periods in the last 2000 years which were warmer than today (one just prior to AD 700, one just after, and one just prior to AD 1000). They also claimed that the paper could only conclude that current temperatures were warmer if one compared the proxy data with other data sets. (For an example of these arguments, see: link to paper)
I’d be very interested to include your rebuttals to these arguments in the piece I’m doing. I must admit to being confused by why proxy data should be compared to instrumental data for the last part of the data-set. Shouldn’t the comparison be a consistent one throughout?
With many thanks for your patience with this”
- Robert Matthews
This seems innocent enough. Matthews just wants to fully understand something before he writes an article on it. Mann responds harshly. He lets the reporter know that he has forwarded his email to his ClimateGate colleagues, letting them know to not communicate with Matthews. Effectively, Mann has alienated Matthews from any further communication with any of his group. It is truly bizarre that Mann feels the need to bully and intimidate anyone who questions his work. What a weak, little man.
“Robert Matthews,
Unfortunately Phil Jones is traveling and will probably be unable to offer a separate reply. Since your comments involve work that is his as well, I have therefore taken the liberty of copying your inquiry and this reply to several of his British colleagues.
The comparisons made in our paper are well explained therein, and your statements belie the clearly-stated qualifications in our conclusions with regard to separate analyses of the Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and globe.
An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by individuals sponsored by ExxonMobil Corportation, hardly an objective source of information.
Owing to pressures on my time, I will not be able to respond to any further inquiries from you. Given your extremely poor past record of reporting on climate change issues, however, I will leave you with some final words. Professional journalists I am used to dealing with do not rely upon un-peer-reviewed claims off internet sites for their sources of information. They rely instead on peer-reviewed scientific research, and mainstream, rather than fringe, scientific opinion.”
- Michael Mann
Below, Mann has received an email from Steve Mackwell, the Editor in Chief of Geophysical Research Letters. He is responding to an issue that Mann brought up in which he was upset because he was unable to review a paper that was critical of his work before it was published.
We can see that Mann feels that no one should be allowed to be critical of his work without him first approving it. Later in the exchange we can see that he truly believes that anyone who is critical of his work is a “contrarian.” We will see him tell his colleagues that they should stop publishing in Geophysical Research Letters solely because the journal has published papers that are not in line with Michael Mann’s views.
“Michael Mann,
In your recent email to Chris Reason, you laid out your concerns that I presume were the reason for your phone call to me last week. I have reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an extensive and thorough review. For that reason, he requested reviews from three knowledgeable scientists. All three reviews recommended publication.
While I do agree that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat aggressively) some of your past work, I do not feel that it takes a particularly harsh tone. On the other hand, I can understand your reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the reviewers. Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to interfere in the timely publication of this work.”
- Steve Mackwell, Editor in Chief of Geophysical Research Letters
Upon receipt of this email, Mann sends this message to his colleagues.
“Colleagues,
Just a heads-up. Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with Geophysical Research Letters. This guy Saiers has a prior connection with the University of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences that causes me some unease.
I think we now know how the various Douglass and coworkers papers with Michaels and Singer, the Soon and coworkers paper, and now this one have gotten published in Geophysical Research Letters.”
- Michael Mann
Tom Wigley replies, stating that the journal has gone down hill merely because they published papers that do not go along with their idea that climate change is occurring in an unprecedented manner. He clearly states that he believes Saiers is in the “greenhouse skeptic camp.”
Keep in mind there is zero evidence that human produced carbon dioxide is contributing to the accelerated warming of our planet. It is accepted solely on faith and computer models. Despite this, these scientists are essentially participating in a witch-hunt to “oust” people who do not accept their shoddy science and piss-poor statistics.
Colleagues,
This is truly awful. Geophysical Research Letters has gone downhill rapidly in recent years. I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah Raper and I have on glaciers—it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics’ camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official American Geophysical Union channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
- Tom Wigley
Mann continues adding fuel to the fire that Geophysical Research Letters has been “taken over” by skeptics because they’ve published four papers that do not agree with the ClimateGate scientists. Read how they are conspiring to use all of their connections to get the editor fired so that no skeptics can get published. By preventing skeptics from being published this allows the alarmists to make the claim that “all of the peer-reviewed literature supports our ideas.”
Colleagues,
Yeah, basically this is just a heads-up to people that something might be up here. What a shame that would be. It’s one thing to lose Climate Research. We can’t afford to lose Geophysical Research Letters. I think it would be useful if people begin to record their experiences with both Saiers and potentially Mackwell (I don’t know him—he would seem to be complicit with what is going on here).
If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it could be taken through the proper channels. I don’t think that the entire American Geophysical Union hierarchy has yet been compromised!
I’m not sure that Geophysical Research Letters can be seen as an honest broker in these debates any more, and it is probably best to do an “end run” around Geophysical Research Letters now where possible. They have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no possible excuse for them publishing all three Douglass papers and the Soon and coworkers paper. These were all pure crap.
There appears to be a more fundamental problem with Geophysical Research Letters now, unfortunately…
- Michael Mann
HIDING
Now we will look at certain ClimateGate emails that deal with hiding data, hiding truths, or other deceitful behavior.
Below we see Phil Jones emailing Michael Mann, describing to him the nature of Freedom of Information Act requests. Jones describes multiple ways that he can hide from the requests in order to avoid having to send his raw data to Steve McIntyre, the Canadian largely responsible for debunking Mann’s original hockey stick. Jones goes as far as to threaten to delete the data should he ever be forced to send it. What are you hiding, Jones?
“Michael Mann,
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years.
If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from the University of East Anglia so he can hide behind that. Intellectual Property Rights should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at University of East Anglia who'll say we must adhere to it!”
- Phil Jones
Later, Phil Jones sends an email to Michael Mann and friends after hearing that Mann will be forced to release some of his data to other scientists.
“Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the Climatic Research Unit temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the United Kingdom has a Freedom of Information Act!
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!”
- Phil Jones
Below we see Phil Jones emailing Michael Mann, asking him to delete all emails about the latest IPCC report. In context, Jones probably had received a Freedom of Information Act request for those emails and didn’t want them getting out. This is illegal.
“Michael Mann,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Briffa regarding the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report? Keith Briffa will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Eugene Wahl and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.”
- Phil Jones
Mann responds, going along with the conspiracy:
“Phil Jones,
I'll contact Eugene Wahl about this as soon as possible. His new email is:
generwahl@yahoo.com.”
- Michael Mann
Next we see Phil Jones emailing Ben Santer, discussing some of the Freedom of Information Act requests that he ignored. Canadian Steve McIntyre sent multiple requests asking for data. They were either ignored or he was sent on a wild goose chase. We see Jones admitting to convincing his colleagues to ignore the FOIA requests and further to admitting to deleting emails that were supposed to be obtainable by such a request.
“Ben Santer,
When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise.
The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers!
If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all.”
- Phil Jones
It is a normal and expected thing in publicly funded science to share your data so that other scientists can attempt to reproduce and validate results. For some reason, most likely because he had something to hide, Phil Jones constantly refused to give out his data. Upon being told that he may be required to give out some, he immediately emailed Michael Mann asking for advice and how to avoid giving any out. Notice at the end he is even looking at getting advice from his legal department. Again, what was he hiding?
“Michael Mann,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading - please ! I'm trying to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all of the data available! Pot calling the kettle black - Christian doesn't make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian message so you don't get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get more advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE - just for you, not even Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.”
- Phil Jones
Below we see Michael Mann emailing Phil Jones. They are discussing hiding data from fellow scientist Steve McIntyre. McIntyre is interested in getting the data from their earlier works and trying to reproduce their results. Knowing that their earlier results are dubious, they conspire to hide the data the best they can. Mann suggests not sending anything, he implies that it will be nearly impossible for McIntyre to get the same results, and lastly he admits if McIntyre had their data it would be to their peril. That doesn’t sound very innocent. Again, what makes science great is that other scientists are supposed to be able to reproduce your results. Mann’s and Jones’ hiding of the data is anti-science.
“Phil Jones,
Personally, I wouldn't send him anything. I have no idea what he's up to, but you can be sure it falls into the "no good" category.
There are a few series from our '03 paper that he won't have--these include the latest Jacoby and D'Arrigo, which I digitized from their publication (they haven't made it publicly available) and the extended western North American series, which they wouldn't be able to reproduce without following exactly the procedure described in our '99 GRL paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
I would not give them *anything*. I would not respond or even acknowledge receipt of their emails. There is no reason to give them any data, in my opinion, and I think we do so at our own peril!”
- Michael Mann
Below is an email from 2004 that Mann sent to a couple of his colleagues. In this email he says that he cleaned up some of his computer programs from a paper he wrote in 2003 and is sending it to them in case they want to test it.
We will see at least four things in this email. The first is that it took Mann a whole year after publishing his paper to have his colleagues actually test out his methods. Why did no one check his work prior to publication?
Second, we see that since he stated that he cleaned up the computer program, we can deduce this is not the actual program he published. His published version was not cleaned up, and therefore likely contained errors (as we will see.)
Third, we see paranoid Mann worried that someone who isn’t worshiping carbon dioxide may get their hands on the data and discover that its flaws.
Lastly, we see that Mann himself finds an error in his program. This means his published version contained an error. The error served to amplify his results by a factor of 1.29. This sounds alarming. Notice in the email he fails to admit this as an actual error. What an arrogant, little man.
Phil Jones, Tom Crowley, and Gabi Hegerl,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and documented version of the computer programs that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) calculations. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so it is best to clean up the programs and provide them to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use these programs for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass them along where they may get into the hands of the wrong people.
In the process of trying to clean the programs up, I realized I had something a bit odd, not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference. … It looks like I had two similarly-named data sets floating around in the programs, and used perhaps the less preferable one ….
This may explain part of what perplexed Gabi when she was comparing my results with the real temperatures. I’ve attached the version of the analysis where the correct data is used instead, as well as the computer programs, which you’re welcome to try to use yourself and play around with. Basically, this increases everything everywhere by the factor 1.29. Perhaps this is more in line with what Gabi was estimating (Gabi?).
Anyway, it doesn’t make a major difference, but you might want to take this into account in any further use of the Mann and Jones data…
- Michael Mann
Below Phil Jones is replying to an email from Neville Nicholls, of the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne, Australia. She has asked Jones if he was expecting to get a call from Congress regarding an ongoing investigation. Jones replies that he hopes he doesn’t. He is trying to hide the fact that he has been receiving grant money from the U.S. Department of Energy. He hopes that they don’t realize they are giving him grant money and that he should be questioned.
Neville Nicholls,
I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a United States Department of Energy grant, and have had this (with Tom Wigley) for the last 25 years.
- Phil Jones
THE MONEY
Now we will look at certain ClimateGate emails that deal with money. This email below is difficult to put into context because we cannot look at their financial records, but it appears that most likely that they ran out of money working on one project without finishing the work. Mick Kelly is telling Nguyen Huu Ninh that they need to prepare a fake set of expenses to make it look like they have money left over so that the NOAA will send them more money, without the NOAA knowing they blew all the money. In the last paragraph we see that they are basically admitting to laundering the money through “Simon’s institute.”
“Nguyen Huu Ninh,
The NOAA wants to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees / equipment / computer money we haven't spent, otherwise the NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!”
- Mick Kelly
In the email below we see Russian scientist Tatiana Dedkova asking ClimateGate scientist Keith Briffa to transfer funds to personal accounts and to keep the funds less than 10,000 dollars in order to avoid big taxes. This is called tax evasion. It is rather ironic that they evade taxes, but their research is used to persuade legislators to put taxes on everything we do via cap-and-trade. It’s worth nothing that since we do not have Keith’s reply, we cannot know if he participated in this tax evasion.
“Keith Briffa,
Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”
- Tatiana M. Dedkova
In the email below we see that Mick Kelly had a meeting with Shell International, and that they are wondering if their new building will be part of their payment. Buildings certainly aren’t inexpensive. This one is ironic as well because global warming alarmists always accuse skeptics of being in the pocket of Big Oil, and here we see that Big Oil is buying them a building.
“Michael Hulme, Tim O’Riordan,
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss ASAP what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc, etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm CC-ing this to Tim who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me! I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Foundation and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's within the remit [payment].”
- Mick Kelly
Below we see David Parker, from U.K. Meteorological Office writing to Neil Plummer, from the National Climate Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia. He is discussing changing the baseline of temperatures in a chapter of the IPCC report so that the graphic would give a greater impression of global warming. In other words, they are manipulating the data in order to show more “global warming.”
“Neil Plummer,
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report to stay with the 1961–1990 baseline. This is partly because a change of baseline confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to a newer baseline, so the impression of global warming will be muted.”
- David Parker
MISCELLANEOUS
Lastly we will look at a few miscellaneous ClimateGate emails. Below we see Adam Markham, from the World Wildlife Foundation, writing to climate scientist Michael Hulme about a paper he wrote regarding climate change in Australia. We see that the agenda-driven activists at WWF are telling climate scientists to make portions of their papers more alarming, so that they can really scare people about climate change.
“Michael Hulme,
I'm sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they've said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50% of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a particularly important issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).”
- Adam Markham [World Wildlife Foundation]
Next we see an email from Gavin Schmidt of NASA. He created an Internet website named RealClimate.org. RealClimate is a highly moderated website that solely promotes the alarmist view of climate science. This was to become the propaganda site of the ClimateGate scientists. Basically, the website gives them the ability to do “damage control” for any scientific article that undermines the idea of global warming.
As an example, recently a paper was published by Susan Solomon that identified water vapor as a major driver of temperature change. This undermined the idea of carbon dioxide driving temperature change, so immediately Gavin Schmidt put up a post on RealClimate attempting to lessen the blow the paper gave to the global warming hypothesis. He is truly grasping at straws.
Below is his email announcing the creation of RealClimate.
“Dozens of Colleagues,
No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see agenda-driven "commentary" on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.
In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days.
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.”
- Gavin Schmidt
In 2005 a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives was investigating Michael Mann. Upon finding this out, he reaches out to his colleagues asking for legal advice. If he was innocent, why did he need a legal team?
“Colleagues,
This was predicted--they're of course trying to make things impossible for me. I need immediate help regarding recourse for free legal advice, etc.”
- Michael Mann
Tom Wigley replies, cautioning Mann to not use any paleoclimate work outside of the ClimateGate scientists work, because it does not remotely support Mann’s now debunked work. Clearly, we see that these scientists do not agree that the most recent warm period was unprecedented.
“Michael Mann,
A word of warning. I would be careful about using other, independent paleoclimatology … work as supporting your work. I am attaching my version of a comparison of the bulk of these other results. Although these all show the “hockey stick” shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleoclimatology results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.”
- Tom Wigley
Below we see Phil Jones emailing John Christy, essentially wishing death upon the planet by hoping that catastrophic global warming claims come true. For the sole purpose of being proven right. Clearly this allows us to see into Jones’ mind and understand why he was so willing to “hide the decline”, and so willing to go along with fraudsters such as Michael Mann, and why he was so willing to hide the fact that he knew global temperatures have been declining since 1998 (See the “Recent Cooling” chapter.)
“John Christy,
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
- Phil Jones
Below we see Phil Jones emailing Michael Mann. First, we see Jones state that he is reviewing a paper that is attacking his own data from the CRU. Of course he is going to say the paper is rubbish and attempt to have it rejected. Next, we see Jones essentially asking Mann in confidence to subvert the peer-review system.
“Michael Mann,
Just agreed to review a paper for Geophysical Research Letters - it is absolute rubbish. It is having a go at the CRU temperature data - not the latest version, but the one you used in 1998. We added lots of data in for the region this person says has urban warming! Such an easy review to do.
Can I ask you something in confidence—don’t email around, especially not to Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that the paper by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes in 1998 and the paper by Mann and Jones in 2003 have underestimated variability in the thousand-year record—from models or from some slowly varying temperature proxy data? Just a yes or no will do. Tim is reviewing them—I want to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with discussing them with others. So forget this email when you reply.”
- Phil Jones
Sorry Phil, we will never forget your emails.
Connect with Facebook
