THE CLIMATEGATE

EMAILS
by John Costella

SPPI REPRINT SERIES ♦ June 8, 2010

THE CLIMATEGATE EMAILS

Edited and Annotated by

John Costella

The Lavoisier Group

March 2010
 About the Author
John Costella was born in East Melbourne in 1966. After being expelled from Xavier
College Kew in 1981, he went on to be dux of St. Kevin’s College Toorak in 1984
and dux of Electrical Engineering Honours at the University of Melbourne in 1989.
Having fallen in love with physics during second year, he went on to be dux of
Physics Honours in 1990 and completed a PhD in theoretical physics in 1994. After
spending a few years on the early rungs of the postdoctoral physics research ladder,
during which time he became accustomed to distilling information from academic
emails, he decided that the life of an itinerant academic was not for him, so he took
up school teaching instead, at the same time keeping up his interests in sub-atomic
physics.

After teaching for eight years at Mentone Grammar and The Peninsula School, he
took up a position as reliability engineer with the Department of Defence in 2006,
analysing statistical data for Defence equipment.

He then moved into the financial sector in April 2007, where he works as Data
Manager and Senior Research Scientist for a leading investment firm.

Dedication
This booklet is dedicated to the memory of John Daly, Australia’s pioneer global
warming skeptic. John’s first publication about global warming, The Greenhouse
Trap, was published by Bantam Books in 1989. It has stood the test of time ex-
tremely well.

John was a pioneer in the use of the Web to disseminate information that was
relevant to this important debate and his website, ‘Still Waiting for Greenhouse’,
showed the power which the Web afforded to those who were shut out of the main-
stream media, but who had important information to make available to all who were
involved in this historic debate.

His sudden, untimely death in January 2004, at the age of 61, was a great loss to the
skeptics’ cause, and tributes to him flowed in from all over the world. An obituary
can be found on the Lavoisier Group website.
The Climategate Emails

edited and annotated by

John Costella

The Lavoisier Group

March 2010

i
© 2010 John Costella and The Lavoisier Group Inc.

A facsimile version of this publication, in PDF form, with

hyperlinks, is available on the Lavoisier Group website:

www.lavoisier.com.au

Layout and typesetting by Foxpress

(a division of Fergco Pty Ltd)
www.fergco.com
[email protected]

Body text set in Minion Pro 12/14.4 pt

ii
 Foreword

The Climategate emails expose to our view a world that was previously hidden from
virtually everyone.
This formerly hidden world was made up of a very few players. But they controlled
those critical Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) processes involv-
ing the temperature records from the past, and the official interpretation of cur-
rent temperature data. They exerted previously unrecognized influence on the “peer
review” process for papers seeking publication in the officially recognised climate
science literature from which the IPCC was supposed to rely exclusively in order to
draw its conclusions.
The Climategate emails demonstrate that these people had no regard for the tradi-
tions and assumptions which had developed over centuries and which provided the
foundations of Western science. At the very core of this tradition is respect for truth
and honesty in reporting data and results; and a recognition that all the data, and all
the steps required to reach a result, had to be available to the scientific world at large.
There are two issues which now have to be addressed. The first is the damage which
has been done to the standing of science as an intellectual discipline on which our
civilisation depends. The second is the status of the IPCC, since that institution is
the source of scientific authority on which prime ministers and other political lead-
ers rely to legitimise their statements about global warming.
The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and
the United Nations Environment Panel (UNEP) in 1988. From the very beginning
its brief was to report on mankind’s influence on climate change.
The IPCC has published four assessment reports, in 1991, 1996, 2001, and in 2007.
Every successive report has upped the ante, both in the confidence of their predic-
tions of increasing global temperatures and rising sea-levels, and in the surety that
mankind is responsible for continued warming.
The Climategate emails originate from the University of East Anglia’s, Climatic Re-
search Unit, (CRU) founded by climatology pioneer Hubert Lamb. Tom Wigley,
who was born and educated in Adelaide, was Director of the CRU until 1993 and
was succeeded by Phil Jones, who is one of two lead players in this story.
The other lead player is Mike Mann, from Penn State University. Mike Mann leapt
from relative obscurity to international fame with his “hockey stick”, a graph of
global temperatures from 1000 AD to the present, which was the showpiece at the

iii
launching of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report in Shanghai in January 2001.
The hockey stick became a corporate logo for the IPCC , but because it rubbed out
the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historical record, it was
subjected to a US congressional inquiry. Eventually it was shown that random data
fed into the algorithms used by Mann to produce his hockey stick from bristle cone
pine tree ring data, also yielded hockey stick results.
In this annotated edition of the Climategate emails, John Costella shows us how a
very small cabal of climate scientists, based at the University of East Anglia and at
Penn State University, were able to control the temperature record fed into the IPCC
reports and which comprised the foundation on which the whole global warming
structure was based. The only data base which they could not influence was the
satellite measured temperature data which John Christy and Roy Spencer, from the
University of Alabama, had established from 1979 on.
That this was a real conspiracy is beyond argument. The word “conspiracy” is used
by the players themselves. In any conspiracy there is a tight inner core and then suc-
cessive rings of collaborators, who accept the leadership of the central core.
The hero who emerges from these emails is Steve McIntyre, a Canadian ex-geologist
and mining analyst, who with remarkable patience and courtesy kept on asking for
the data and the computer programmes upon which the various IPCC pronounce-
ments were based. He has performed a great service for the world, which one day
will surely be recognised.
The other hero, so far unknown, is the whistle-blower who realised the implications
of what was going on and was able to place all these emails on an obscure Russian
website.
John Costella has done a great service in making these emails intelligible to us all.
The Lavoisier Group is grateful to him for allowing us to publish his work. The cost
of this publication was met through donations from the Lavoisier Group’s member
and friends and on behalf of the Board I thank them for their generous support.

Hugh Morgan
Melbourne
March 2010

iv
 Introduction:
Why Climategate is so Distressing to Scientists

The most difficult thing for a scientist in the era of Climategate is trying to explain
to family and friends why it is so distressing to scientists. Most people don’t know
how science really works: there are no popular television shows, movies or books
that really depict the everyday lives of real scientists; it just isn’t exciting enough. I’m
not talking here about the major discoveries of science—which are well-described
in documentaries, popular science series, and magazines—but rather how the week-
by-week process of science (often called the “scientific method”) actually works.

The best analogy that I have been able to come up with, in recent weeks, is the crimi-
nal justice system—which is often depicted in the popular media. Everyone knows
what happens if the police obtain evidence by illegal means: the evidence is ruled
inadmissible; and, if a case rests on that tainted evidence, it is thrown out of court.
The justice system is not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent; rather, that
determining the truth is impossible if evidence is not protected from tampering or
fabrication.

The same is true in science: scientists assume that the rules of the scientific method
have been followed, at least in any discipline that publishes its results for public con-
sumption. It is that trust in the process that allows me, for example, to believe that
the human genome has been mapped—despite my knowing nothing about that field
of science at all. That same trust has allowed scientists at large to similarly believe in
the results of climate science.

Until now.

So what are the “rules” of the scientific method? Actually, they are not all that differ-
ent from those of the justice system. Just as it is a fundamental right of every affected
party to be heard and fairly considered by the court, it is of crucial importance to
science that all points of view be given a chance to be heard, and fairly debated. But,
of course, it would be impossible to allow an “open slather” type of arrangement, like
discussion forums on the Internet; so how do we admit all points of view, without
descending into anarchy?

This question touches on something of a dark secret within science—one which

most scientists, through the need for self-preservation, are scared to admit: most
disciplines of science are, to a greater or lesser extent, controlled by fashions, biases
and dogma. Why is this so? Because the mechanism by which scientific debate has
been “regulated” to avoid anarchy—at least since the second half of the twentieth

v
century—has been the “peer review” process. The career of any professional scien-
tist lives or dies on their success in achieving publication of their papers in “peer-
reviewed” journals. So what, exactly, does “peer-reviewed” mean? Simply that other
professional scientists in that discipline must agree that the paper is worthy of publi-
cation. And what is the criterion that determines who these “professional scientists”
should be? Their success in achieving publication of their papers in peer-reviewed
journals! Catch-22.

It may seem, on the surface, that this circular process is fundamentally flawed but,
borrowing the words of Winston Churchill, it is the worst form of government ex-
cept for all those others that have been tried. Science is not, of course, alone in this
respect; for example, in the justice system, judges are generally selected from the
ranks of lawyers. So what is it that allows this form of system to work, despite its
evident circularity?

The justice system again provides a clue: judges are not the ones who ultimately
decide what occurs in a courtroom: they simply implement the laws passed or im-
posed by the government—and politicians are not, in general, selected solely from
the ranks of the legal profession. This is the ultimate “reality check” that prevents the
legal system from spiralling into navel-gazing irrelevance.

Equivalent “escape valves” for science are not as explicitly obvious, but they exist
nonetheless.

First, a scientific discipline can maintain a “closed shop” mentality for a while, but
eventually the institutions and funding agencies that provide the lifeblood of their
work—the money that pays their wages and funds their research—will begin to
question the relevance and usefulness of the discipline, particularly in relation to
other disciplines that are competing for the same funds. This will generally be seen
by the affected scientists as “political interference”, but it is a reflection of their de-
scent into arrogance and delusions of self-importance for them to believe that only
they themselves are worthy of judging their own merits.

Second, scientists who are capable and worthy, but unfairly “locked out” of a given
discipline, will generally migrate to other disciplines in which the scientific process
is working as it should. Dysfunctional disciplines will, in time, atrophy, in favour of
those that are healthy and dynamic.

The Climategate emails show that these self-regulating mechanisms simply failed to
work in the case of climate science—perhaps because “climate science” is itself an
aggregation of many different and disparate scientific disciplines. Those component
disciplines are extremely challenging. For example, it would be wonderful if NASA
were able to invent a time machine, and go back over the past hundred thousand
years and set up temperature and carbon dioxide measurement probes across the
breadth of the globe. Unfortunately, we don’t have this. Instead, we need to infer
these measurements, by counting tree rings, or digging up tubes of ice. The science

vi
of each of these disciplines is well-defined and rigorous, and there are many good
scientists working in these fields. But the real difficulty is the “stitching together” of
all of these results in a way that allows answers to the fundamental questions: How
much effect has mankind had on the temperature of the planet? And how much dif-
ference would it make if we did things differently?

It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline”

—that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through
the Climategate emails, one can see members of that community—usually those
with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers—questioning
(as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the ex-
tremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers.
Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own do-
main of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-
out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.

So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge—

thanking them for their experience (no-one knows everything about everything)
and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers
of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball
those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the lead-
ers—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists
within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.

This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most impor-
tant public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.

John Costella
10 December 2009

vii
viii
 The Climategate Emails and
What they Mean
Climategate began on 19 November 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands
of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with
the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.
This institution has played a central role in the “climate change” debate. Its scientists,
together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the “warming” into
Global Warming: they were responsible for analysing and collating the various
measurements of temperature from around the globe and that, going back for many
years, collectively underpinned the central scientific argument that mankind’s
liberation of “greenhouse” gases—particularly carbon dioxide—was leading to a
relentless, unprecedented and ultimately catastrophic warming of the entire planet.

The key phrase here, from a scientific point of view, is that it is “unprecedented”
warming. There is absolutely no doubt that mankind has liberated substantial
quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the past two centuries. But
mankind did not “create” this carbon dioxide out of nothing. It was released by the
burning of “fossil fuels”, which were created over millions of years from the remains
of plants and animals (who themselves ultimately obtained their nutrition from
those plants). So where did those plants get their energy and carbon dioxide from?
They absorbed the radiant energy of the Sun, and breathed in carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, as plants continue to do today. In other words, when we burn fossil
fuels, we are utilizing a small part of the solar energy that had been collected and
stored by plants over millions of years, and in the process we are liberating into the
atmosphere the carbon dioxide that those plants had absorbed from the atmosphere
in the first place.

This may sound like a fairly benign sort of natural cycle, until you realize that a
couple of hundred years is a mere blink of an eye compared with the millions of
years it took for the planet to build up those resources. It is right for scientists to
worry about whether that massive and almost instantaneous “kick” to the planet
may throw the equilibrium of the biota into complete chaos. It is a valid question, of
ultimate global importance—one that most people would have thought would have
demanded the most careful, exacting and rigorous scientific analyses that mankind
could muster.

Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the
scientists investigating arguably the most important issue ever to face mankind.
Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we
instead see a small team of incompetent scientists; abusing almost every aspect

1
of the framework of science to build a fence around themselves and their fellow
activists, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”. Most
people find it impossible to believe that this could have happened; and it is only
because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a
hugely funded industry in a matter of a few years that the perpetrators were able to
get away with it for so long.

But, as wisely noted by both P. T. Barnum and Abraham Lincoln,

You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of
the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.

An increasing number of highly qualified scientists slowly began to realize that

the “climate science” community was a façade—and that the vitriolic attacks
upon the sensible arguments of mathematicians, statisticians, and indeed of
scientists using plain common sense were not the product of scientific rigour
at all, but merely attempts at self-protection at any cost. At this point the veil
began to lift on what has arguably become one of the greatest scientific frauds
in the history of mankind.

This is one of the darker periods in the history of science. Those who love science,
and all it stands for, will be pained by what they read below. However, the crisis is
here, and cannot be avoided.

For simplicity, I have maintained the numerical and chronological order of the
emails, as they appear in the Climategate files. I considered reorganizing them by
topic, but quickly realized that this would require the replication of large numbers of
excerpts—which would lengthen what is already a long document. Thus, the various
issues involved in this scandal are explored chronologically, in parallel.

To assist the reader in getting acquainted with the various characters in this
saga, I have colour-coded their emails, as described below. To make the emails
understandable to any normal person, I have edited out scientific jargon, expanded
acronyms where appropriate, and inserted explanatory comments where I thought
it necessary. All of my comments, and the editing that I have done to the excerpts,
are in black.

Unlike the Climategate perpetrators themselves, however, I have made all the raw
data—the emails themselves, in unredacted raw text format—available through the
Lavoisier Group website in an online version of this hard copy document. Simply go
to the website at www.lavoisier.com.au, follow the obvious link to the PDF version,
and you will find that the corresponding heading for each email contains a hyperlink
to that original Climategate email. Thus, if you believe that I have excerpted from
the email unfairly, or out of context, then you can simply read the original email to
determine if that is the case.

So let us begin.

2
Cast of colourful characters
Mike Mann: lead player in the United States

Phil Jones: lead player in the United Kingdom

Tom Wigley: older player who becomes increasingly worried about the unfolding
scandal

Keith Briffa: older player whose blunders lead the others to all but abandon him

Ben Santer: dangerously arrogant and naive young player in the United States

Other players: of varying degrees of complicity and integrity

Skeptics and other unrelated parties

March 6, 1996: email 0826209667

This earliest email of note in the Climategate collection reminds us that—as with
many things in life—money plays a key role in this saga. Let me emphasize that
Climategate is not riddled with financial scandals of Madoff magnitude. Rather, we
are reminded of the fact that the entire industry of “climate science” was created out of
virtually nothing, by means of a massive influx of funding that was almost universally
one-sided in its requirement that its recipients find evidence for man-made climate
change—rather than investigate whether or how much mankind had caused climate
change.

In contrast to the trillions of dollars of global expenditure which these scientists urged
world leaders to spend by the end of 2009, the amounts involved in funding their
research appear trifling—typically measured in “mere” millions of dollars. But many
“climate scientists” built their entire careers on this funding, and so it is not surprising
that they became so completely dependent on this conditional lifeline that they single-
mindedly focused on achieving the ends for which they were commissioned—and
attacked any intruders who threatened it.

In this unfortunate case, a scientist in the former Soviet Union appears to descend
to the level of tax evasion, in order to maximize the amount of money available. As
Stepan Shiyatov writes to Keith Briffa:

Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the … 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 United States
Dollars. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes …

Unfortunately, all other emails relating to these cash transfers have either been lost,
deleted, or withheld by the Climategate whistle-blower, so we don’t know whether

3
Keith Briffa complied with this request or not.
I believe that this level of financial impropriety would be a rare occurrence—although
it does highlight the fact that some of the people involved in this research were
prepared to “bend the rules” in order to achieve their goals. It also reminds us that
scientists in general are often ignorant of the requirements of the law; but, most of
the time, this does not lead to any significant ramifications. Therefore, although there
are other examples of low-level financial impropriety and misappropriation sprinkled
throughout the Climategate emails, I do not believe that they are of any significance
over and above the general comments that I have made here, and I will not explicitly
list them in the following.

July 11, 1996: email 0837094033

In the next email we are introduced to a number of key aspects of Climategate, which
run throughout the saga. The writer is Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit
at the University of East Anglia in England. The recipient is Alan Robock, a climate
scientist who was, at the time, at the University of Maryland.
Phil Jones has apparently become aware of a climate skeptic in the United Kingdom—
seemingly the first, from his words:
Britain seems to have found its Pat Michaels / Fred Singer / Bob Balling /
Dick Lindzen (American climate skeptics). Our population is only 25% of
yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should
come across him is Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of
yours and he’s an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment.
Robock requires a translation into American English:
Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak
the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.
We don’t seem to have Jones’s reply, but the translation would be something like
“useless idiot”. Note that Jones is immediately reporting the existence of this first
British skeptic to climate scientists on the other side of the Atlantic, taking special
note of the “air time” (exposure on television or radio) that the skeptic is apparently
receiving. Already, we can start to appreciate that the politics and “spin doctoring” in
this field outweighs the scientific issues. Continuing from Jones’s email:
For his day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he
predicts the weather from solar phenomena.
Jones’s report is as efficient as that of an intelligence agent: the skeptic is dangerous
because he is the British equivalent of a college professor—in the “hard sciences” of
physics and astronomy, no less. However, he softens his attitude to the skeptic slightly:

4
 He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power
safety.
We here see clearly that Jones’s assessment of a scientist’s worth is influenced strongly
by his assessment of his or her ideology—in scientific terms, nuclear power safety is
completely unrelated to the science of climate change. This dangerous prejudice will
prove to be one of the most persistent threads throughout the Climategate scandal.

September 17, 1996: email 0842992948

We now turn to Keith Briffa, one of the more curious University of East Anglia
characters in the Climategate saga. Gary Funkhouser of the University of Arizona
writes to Briffa about some data that were collected in the late 1980s. Briffa makes
it clear that he is only interested in the data if they can be used to “sell” the climate
change message to the general public:

The data is of course interesting but I would have to see it and the board
would want the larger implications of the statistics clearly phrased in
general and widely understandable (by the ignorant masses) terms before
they would consider it not too specialised.

September 19, 1996: email 0843161829

Two days after the previous exchange, Gary Funkhouser reports on his attempts to
obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change:

I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I
pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.…
I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics
any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll
have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

His reluctance to report a “null result” (namely, that the data do not show anything
significant) is extremely disturbing, as it flies in the face of standard scientific practice,
which requires that all results be reported. The fundamental problem is that any
censoring of results that do not lead to a predetermined conclusion will always—by
design—bias the corpus of reported results towards that conclusion, in the same way
that a gambler who always brags about his wins (but stays silent about his losses) will
appear to be hugely successful, even if his losses have, in reality, far outweighed his
winnings (as is generally the case, in the long run, except for the extremely skilful).

We will, sadly, see that this fundamental scientific flaw—which, in and of itself, is
sufficient to render the evidence for climate change completely unreliable and
scientifically worthless—is one that runs throughout the entire Climategate saga.

5
Note, also, the immense power wielded—albeit ever so subtly—by Briffa: he influenced
the analysis that Funkhouser performed, simply by telling him that the results would
need to be politically “saleable”. Scientists are not naive: they know that securing
funding, publication of their papers, and interest from other institutions are the key
factors determining their future.

November 22, 1996: email 0848679780

Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office
(national weather service). He writes to Phil Jones:

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with
the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December
monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply
to avoid a lot of wasted time.

Again, selling the public message—before the actual end of the calendar year—is of
primary importance for these senior scientists. Jenkins goes on to explain how this
“invented” data should be leaked:

We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (of the United Nations Environment
Program) (who has had this in the past and seems now to expect special
treatment) so that he can write an article for the silly season. We could also
give this to Neville Nicholls (climate scientist at the Bureau of Meteorology
Research Centre in Melbourne, Australia)?

Lest it be thought that this may be standard public relations procedure for the
Met(eorological) Office, Jenkins puts the issue beyond doubt:

I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but it’s just meant to save time in
the long run.

In other words, Jenkins was more interested in getting “headline” numbers out to the
general public, than in ensuring an impartial release of information to all members of
the press at the same time.

One can only speculate about the trouble in which Jenkins would have landed himself
if he had written those words today, but given that we are here talking about 1996—
before so many billions of dollars were expended on the climate change debate, and
stock prices of “green” companies responded very quickly to such reports—we can
put his actions down to mere expedience and naïveté.

6
October 9, 1997: email 0876437553
We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how
many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).

Just months before the UNFCCC’s Third Conference of Parties (COP III), the critical
Kyoto meeting of December 1997 which resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, we find the
germ of this idea fertilizing in an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for
Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart:

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions—

Distribution for Endorsements—

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible

for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media
is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going
to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the
prominent ones, but that is a different story.

This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the
very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether
the signatory has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people
had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science.
It is simply nonsense.

Alcamo continues:

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 Non-Governmental Organizations
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
different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very
different directions.

7
 Conclusion I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17 November
at the latest.
Alcamo demonstrates that this is a carefully crafted piece of political activism, not
related to the scientific process at all. Indeed, the optimization of the timing—allowing
just enough time for delegates to absorb the message, but not enough time for the
scientists signing on to this petition to actually examine or criticize its contents—will
return with a vengeance below.

November 12, 1997: email 0879365369

Richard Tol to Mike Hulme and Timothy Mitchell:

I am always worried about this sort of thing. Even if you have 1000
signatures, and appear to have a strong backup, how many of those asked
did not sign?

Tol is absolutely correct: just as suppressing research results that do not support
climate change inevitably biases the published record, so too does suppressing the
number of scientists who declined to sign the petition.

Many similar lessons are related to undergraduate students of statistics every year the
world over, which earn much laughter in the lecture theatre, but are less humorous in
real life: estimating war-time damage to planes by examining only those that return;
completely wrong predictions of elections, because conservative voters are less likely
to respond to pollsters; and so on. That any faith at all was placed on climate petitions
of this sort is worrisome.

Tol continues:

I think that the text of the Statement conveys the message that it is a
scientific defense for the European Union’s position. There is not any.

Indeed, as we have seen in the intervening years, it was used to justify much more
than that.

November 25, 1997: email 0880476729

Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their
Statement.
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others
to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I
also believe that you have severely distorted the IPCC “view” when you

8
 say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for
immediate control of emissions.” …
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
disservice. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that
you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific
assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the
vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists
have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from
the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the
objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think
you have failed to do this.
Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist
who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse
any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You
are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that
some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a
balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you
are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with
the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.
…
When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements,
they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You
have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of
dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by
the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing.
I couldn’t express it any better myself.

May 6, 1999: email 0926026654

Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann, copying in Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn (United
Kingdom), and Malcolm Hughes and Ray Bradley (United States), regarding a tiff
between the two continents:
… you seem quite pissed off with us all in the Climatic Research Unit. I
am somewhat at a loss to understand why. It is clear from the emails that
this relates to the emphasis placed on a few words or phrases in Keith’s and
Tim’s Science paper. These may not be fully resolved but the paper comes
out tomorrow. I don’t want to open more wounds but I might by the end
of the email.

9
As we shall see, Mike Mann does not tolerate any criticism—no matter how mild,
even if it comes from his own colleagues; and he does everything within his power to
prevent the publication of any such criticisms. In this case, it seems that he has failed.
In defence of his team, Jones raises an issue that recurs throughout the Climategate
saga:
You may think Keith or I have reviewed some of your papers but we haven’t.
I’ve reviewed Ray’s and Malcolm’s—constructively, I hope, where I thought
something could have been done better. I also know you’ve reviewed my
paper with Gabi Hegerl very constructively.
This is a remarkable discussion for two senior scientists to be having. The “peer
review” process for papers submitted to academic journals is, in general, completely
anonymous, for the same reason that voting at elections is anonymous: to prevent
intimidation or bullying. For these scientists to be surreptitiously trying to determine
who the reviewers of their papers are immediately tells us two things: that the
practitioners have no respect for the principles of scientific integrity and objectivity;
and that this “discipline of science” has such a small and exclusive membership that
they are able to guess at the names of their reviewers by a simple process of elimination.
Jones tries to heal over the rift, but then proceeds to back up the statements of his
colleagues:
There are two things I’m going to say though:
1) Keith didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re
on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the
1000 year timescale. …
2) The errors don’t include all the possible factors. …
Scientific disagreement is absolutely normal and healthy; that is not the point of this
exchange. Rather, it is Jones’s feeling the need to justify the criticisms being published
by his staff—and to assert, unequivocally, that he agrees with and supports those
criticisms—that is of real concern. Presumably, if Jones had not agreed with them,
then Mann’s attempt to have the criticisms suppressed might well have been successful.
In other words, these two men—Mike Mann and Phil Jones—essentially controlled
what could and could not be published in the scientific literature relating to their field.
This is an extremely dangerous concentration of power for any discipline, let alone a
field possessing such enormous political and financial ramifications.

May 6, 1999: email 0926031061

We don’t have the intervening discussion, but it seems that Phil Jones and Mike Mann
have called a truce:

10
 We’ll differ a bit on a few points, but let’s wipe the slate clean …
I must admit to having little regard for the Web. Living over here makes that
easier than in the United States—but I would ignore the so-called skeptics
until they get to the peer-review arena. I know this is harder for you in
the United States and it might become harder still at your new location. I
guess it shows though that what we are doing is important. The skeptics are
fighting a losing battle.
It might seem remarkable that a senior scientist in 1999 could be dismissive of the
World Wide Web; but we must remember that this is not particle physics (where the
web originated, in the early 1990s), but rather a small corner of science that enjoyed
a surge of interest when the Ice Age scare took off in the early 1970s but enjoyed a
massive increase in government funding when Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in
the UK, and US Vice President Al Gore made global warming a major political issue.
As he dismisses the impact of the Web, Jones feels safe that he won’t be hassled by
skeptics, as he knows that they have no chance of penetrating the closed club of peer
review; recall that the field of his “peers” is so small that he can determine who is
anonymously reviewing his papers by a process of elimination.
In 1999 the global warmists were riding a very big wave indeed. Al Gore was set to
win the 2000 US presidential election; Tony Blair, the UK Prime Minister, was a true
believer; and the entire EU apparatus in Brussels was pushing global warming as a
basic EU policy. Phil Jones, in 1999, had every reason to feel invincible.

May 19, 1999: email 0927145311

Tom Wigley writes to Mike Hulme and Mike MacCracken, regarding a chain of emails
discussing climate models:
I’ve just read the emails of May 14 onwards regarding carbon dioxide. I
must say that I am stunned by the confusion that surrounds this issue.
Basically, I and MacCracken are right and Felzer, Schimel and (to a lesser
extent) Hulme are wrong. There is absolutely, categorically no doubt about
this.
Mike Hulme responds:
I still have a problem … making sense of what the Met(eorological) Office
Hadley Centre have published …
Tom Wigley replies:
Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Met(eorological)
Office Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. …
The Hadley people have clearly screwed things up, but their “errors” don’t

11
 really matter given all of the uncertainties. I didn’t mention this because
I thought that opening up that can of worms would confuse people even
more.
…
The climate model output is also uncertain.
The fact that scientists are disagreeing here is not remarkable; rather, it is the degree
of confusion that is alarming—and a seeming complete lack of concern for the
consequences of publishing data that is agreed to be wrong. Wigley’s argument is that
the consequences of the mistake are insignificant compared to the uncertainties in the
model itself; and so he deemed it better to “let sleeping dogs lie”.

As we shall see, this form of disregard for accuracy and honesty was widespread in
this very small community of scientists, and sowed the seeds of their own destruction.

July 16, 1999: email 0932158667

In discussing a paper published in Science, Ed Cook asks Keith Briffa:

Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in

your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here)
…

This caveat by Cook implies that “applying a bodge”—that is, a fudge, a fake-up; a
manipulation of the data to obtain the property you wish to see in it—is something
that he believes that Briffa may well have done; and he wants to first make sure that
Briffa has not done so, before encouraging him to publish a response that may be
critical of the published work.

That this comment is not made in an inflammatory or accusational tone—but merely

as a friendly check—is of extreme concern. Briffa’s reply confirms that he took no
offence; he doesn’t even answer the question.

“Applying a bodge” is scientific fraud, pure and simple; that it was accepted by this
small coterie of scientists as “standard practice” is damning.

Briffa’s response, however, does continue a familiar theme:

I really have not had time to fully digest their message but I can’t see why
either they or Nature did not ask my opinion of it. My instinctive first
reaction is that I doubt it is the answer but we do get results that support
… that may be consistent with their hypothesis … If you get any detailed
thoughts on the Nature paper please let me know, as I don’t know how to
respond, if at all.

12
Briffa implicitly assumes that any paper that touches on his own work would
automatically be sent to him for review, and he cannot understand why this
“gentlemen’s understanding” was not honoured in this case—even though he admits
that the published paper may well be correct! Again, this highlights how tiny, cosy,
and scientifically dysfunctional this discipline of science really was—at a time when
the Western world was being assured by most major political leaders that the science
had been extensively corroborated and was rock-solid against any criticism.

July 29, 1999: email 0933255789

Adam Markham from the WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund) writes to
University of East Anglia climate scientists Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, about a
paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australasia:

Hi Mike,

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 Australian scientists. In
particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme
events beefed up if possible. …

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 Australian
scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).

Climategate takes on a new dimension with this revelation: political activists from
an environmental lobby group are telling East Anglia climate scientists to rewrite
sections of their paper, as it is less alarming than the message that Australian scientists
have already presented for public consumption!

September 22, 1999: email 0938018124

In this next email, Keith Briffa raises one of the issues that is central to the infamous
“hide the decline” email (which is the next email to be dealt with, below). It is therefore
worth spending some time understanding what this is all about, at least in a simplified
form. (Scientists interested in a more thorough account of all the methods used to
“hide the decline” should refer to Steve McIntyre’s extensive discussion of these issues
[see: http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/].)

To measure the temperature of the planet, we obviously need some thermometers.

Now, it would be nice if someone were able to invent a time machine, so that we could
go back over the past few thousand (or hundred thousand) years, and place accurate

13
scientific thermometers all over the planet, to make these measurements for us. Of
course, this isn’t possible, so scientists need to use other things as substitutes—or
“proxies”—for these thermometers.

A key “temperature proxy” used by climate scientists is tree-ring data, namely,

measurements of the patterns of the rings of trees that were growing hundreds or
even thousands of years ago.

Now, even my sons (in elementary school at the time of writing) can tell me a handful
of different factors that might influence the growth of a tree in a particular year: the
amount of sun shining on it; the amount of rain it gets; how hot the weather is when
it is growing; the conditions of the soil it is growing in; and particularly the amount of
carbon dioxide available for it to breathe in. We should imagine that the growth of a
tree should, at the very least, depend on these five things.

So is a tree really a good thermometer?

As a physicist, such a proposition seems fraught with danger from the outset. Let’s
pretend, for the moment, that the growth of a tree depends only on these five factors,
and no others. An elementary fact of mathematics, that I used to teach to my 15-year-
old high school students, is that if you have five unknowns (these five factors at any
given instant of time in a particular tree’s lifetime), then you need at least five pieces
of independent information to disentangle them all—and you need to know these five
quantities to a high accuracy.

So to make any use at all of tree ring data, climate scientists would need at least four
other completely independent “proxies”. Is this what they do?

They do not.

At best, they have a few other “proxies”, which themselves introduce more unknown
quantities into the equation—like the differences between sea temperatures and
air temperatures, or the sizeable differences of temperature across the planet. And
instead of using these other “proxies” to try to disentangle temperature from the other
relevant physical quantities, these climate scientists told the world that each of them is
an independent measure of temperature.

It may seem unbelievable that these “scientists” were so mathematically incompetent

that they didn’t realize the folly of this assumption; but it must be remembered that
they drew their limited membership from the ranks of the “soft” sciences, where
mathematical modelling expertise is, sadly, often lacking.

Of course, these researchers realized that all of their “independent temperature

proxies” didn’t always give the same answers; so most of their work was involved
in either figuring out which pieces of data agreed with which others (and ignoring
or suppressing those that didn’t), or concocting mathematically invalid ways of

14
“averaging out” the various discrepant pieces of data, to give an artificial appearance
of consistency.

Unfortunately for them, the game fell apart when one of their colleagues did what any
good scientist would have done in the first place: they went to check that their main
“temperature proxy”—the tree ring data—agreed with absolutely reliable and rock-
solid temperature measurements: those made in a certain area in the United States,
over the previous forty years, using actual, genuine, scientific thermometers.
And what did they find?
That while the thermometers said that temperatures had gone up, the rings of the trees
in those same locations indicated that temperatures had gone down.
In other words, tree rings had been proved to be completely unreliable thermometers.
It is with this huge problem in mind that Keith Briffa writes to Mike Mann, Phil Jones,
Tom Karl, and Chris Folland, expressing severe reservations about their contribution
to the next Report by the IPCC (the 2001 IPCC’s Third Assessment Report or TAR),
at that time in its revision stages:
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent
unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the temperature
proxy data” but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have
a lot of temperature proxies that come right up to today and those that
do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) have some unexpected
changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think
it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
That is an understatement! Indeed, Briffa states his key opinion even more clearly:
I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years
ago.
This is a remarkable statement, which undermines the entire argument propounded
by Briffa and his colleagues that global warming was “unprecedented”.
Mike Mann responds to this catastrophic development:
I walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil Jones have
both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris
Folland, through no fault of his own, but probably through me not
conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any
singular confidence I have in my own (Mann and co-workers’) results.
In other words, Mann has hardly any confidence in his own results!
Mann now engineers what became the infamous “green graph”—the green tree-ring
line in the graph in the IPCC Report that mysteriously passes behind the other lines at

15
the year 1961—and never emerges on the other side. First, he needs to fiddle the data,
to make sure that the lines all cross at right place:

I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the graph, and can

ask Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the graph he has been preparing
(nobody liked my own color and graphing conventions so I’ve given up
doing this myself). The key thing is making sure the lines are vertically
aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but
in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century with
the corresponding average values of the other lines, due to the late 20th
century decline.

Satisfied with that solution, he then turns to the problem of that bothersome “late
20th century decline”:

So if Chris and Tom (?) are OK with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s
line to the graph. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We
demonstrate … that the major discrepancies between Phil’s and our line
can be explained in terms of (statistical excuses). But that explanation
certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s data, which has similar properties to
Phil’s data, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s
does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on—everyone in the
room at the IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential
distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like
to show with the Jones and co-workers’ and Mann and co-workers’ results.

In other words, there was no consensus at all at the IPCC—other than the participants’
universal agreement that there was a problem with what they wanted to show. Mann
is here telling us, in his own words, that there was an agenda to present a “consensus
viewpoint”—that simply didn’t exist in reality because of the science.

Mann now buries himself, by explaining what they should have done:

So, if we show Keith’s line in this plot, we have to comment that “something
else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can
help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the data and
the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones
and co-workers’ and Mann and co-workers’ results? We would need to put
in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics would have a field
day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence
these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the …estimates from
paleological data. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d
hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!

In other words, Mann believes that all the lines should agree, but the actual data say
otherwise; and he is loath to give that “fodder” to the critics. Mann is in denial of the

16
obvious conclusion: that the science is in doubt. He tries to pressure Briffa to come up
with excuses why his data might not agree with the others.
Of course, we know that, ultimately, he gave up on this impossible task, and the
troublesome “decline” was simply removed! This was how the term “hiding the
decline” came into being (see below).
Mann-made global warming, indeed.

November 16, 1999: email 0942777075

That background now paves the way to our understanding the historic email which
generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the 33 words which summarize
one of the most serious scientific frauds in the history of Western science.
Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim
Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures
to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961
for Keith’s to hide the decline. [emphasis added]
This email was sent less than two months after the one analysed above. Clearly, Mike
Mann’s problems with Keith Briffa’s data—that it didn’t agree with the real temperature
measurements from 1961 onwards—had by this time spread to the data for the other
“temperature proxies”, albeit only from 1981 onwards. Jones reveals that Mann did
not address this problem by making an honest note of it in the paper that he and
his co-authors published in Nature, but rather by fraudulently substituting the real
temperature data into the graphs, for the past 20 or 40 years as required.
That Mann did so would, of itself, disqualify him and all of his research from any
future consideration in the annals of science; but here we have the other leader of
the field, Phil Jones, bragging that he admired the “trick” so much that he adopted
it himself. Moreover, his email was sent to the major players who dominated this
field. It is their silence and collaboration over the following decade in “hiding the
decline” which justifies the use of the word “conspiracy”; a conspiracy which will rob
the “discipline” of climate science of any credibility, and which will cast suspicion
about the integrity of Western science for many decades to come.

July 5, 2000: email 0962818260

Mike Kelly, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, writes to
Mike Hulme and 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

17
 partner, and will contribute to a studentship fund, though under certain
conditions.
And they accuse skeptics of “being in the pockets” of Big Oil?
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.
Sounds lucrative. Buildings don’t come cheap.

August 23, 2000: email 0967041809

In this email we get an insight into how the politics of propaganda completely overrode
the rules of good scientific practice, when it came to publications on “climate science”.
Steve Schneider of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University in the
United States complains to a number of his international colleagues:
… please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the 34% to 66%
subjective probability range. It will convey a completely different meaning
to lay persons—read decision makers—since that probability range
represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like
“quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but “inconclusive” applies as
well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be
misinterpreted on the outside.
To anyone even vaguely familiar with probability and statistics, Schneider’s suggestion
is unforgivable; and it doesn’t take a PhD to understand why. Forget about climate
change, for the moment, and consider the simpler example of tossing a coin. If the
coin is fair, and it is tossed fairly, then the likelihood of getting “heads” is 50 per cent.
Now, imagine that you had to describe how sure you are that you would get “heads”
on the next toss, to your boss—or your spouse—without using any numbers. “It’s
inconclusive” would accurately convey the fact that it’s just as likely that you would
not get “heads” as it is that you would. “It’s quite possible”, on the other hand, conveys
the impression that it’s a possibility that is quite likely; it biases the language in one
direction, without faithfully conveying the equal likelihood that reality could go in the
exact opposite direction.
Indeed, placing any emphasis at all on a 34% to 66% confidence interval is a complete
misapplication of probability and statistics. Standard scientific practice is to only
consider a result to be significant if the probability of it being true is estimated to be
greater than some pre-determined threshold—typically 95%, for everyday analyses,
or some more stringent threshold if the ramifications of getting it wrong are really
serious.

18
Tom Karl, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Climatic Data Center, compounds the comedy:
Steve, I agree with your assessment of “inconclusive”—“quite possible”
is much better and we use “possible” in the United States National
Assessment. Surveys have shown that the term “possible” is interpreted in
this range by the public.
Despite Karl completely agreeing with his butchering of the language, Schneider is
concerned that Karl’s term is still not alarmist enough. His response reminds one of
Sir Humphrey in Yes, Minister:
Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various
cultures here. Please get the “inconclusive” out! By the way, “possible” still has
some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in
principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK—but “quite possible”
conveys medium confidence better—but then why not use “medium
confidence”, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded
after going through exactly the kinds of discussions we’re having now?
Indeed, if they continued this farce for long enough, they would eventually conclude
that they may as well say that it is “overwhelmingly likely”! Remember, we are here
talking about a scenario that—even according to their own calculations—was just as
likely to be wrong as it was right!

September 11, 2000: email 0968705882

Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist and Head of the Physics of Weather and Climate
Section of The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste,
Italy, writes to the other Lead Authors of Chapter 10 of the latest IPCC Report. In his
first paragraph he makes a comment that I will return to below:
We said that one thing to look at was the agreement with the old data
and thus I noticed that relaxing the criteria determining what “agreement”
means, would yield a greater agreement.
He then details his serious concerns about how the IPCC Report is being drafted:
First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather
uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also un-reviewed
material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize
that Chapter 9 of the Report is including new stuff, and thus we can and
need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of the IPCC
have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more
an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal), but the
production of results. The softened condition that the models themselves

19
 have to be published does not even apply, because the Japanese model, for
example, is very different from the published one which gave results not
even close to the actual … version …. Essentially, I feel that at this point
there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a
dangerous precedent which might undermine the IPCC’s credibility, and
I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it
is just OK to do this. Anyway, this is only my opinion, for what it is worth.
Further on in the email, he describes the criterion for determining that models “agree”:
1) Do we soften our requirement, i.e. from “all the models except one need
to agree with each other” to “all the models except two need to agree with
each other” agreement? I do not feel strongly about it but am more in favor
of not softening the criterion. We are looking for confidence and model
agreement and should have stringent requirements on it.
In other words—to fill in the missing emails, that we do not have—what has happened
is the following: The scientists previously decided that they would accept that all the
models “agree” if either all of them agree with each other, or all but one of them agree
with each other. But in preparing their Chapter for the Report, they found that two
of the models did not agree with the others. Thus it has been suggested that they now
“move the goalposts”—after the event—to redefine “agreement” so that two of the
models be allowed disagree with the others!
In fact, this entire “criterion for agreement” is absolute nonsense in the first place,
flying in the face of the most elementary principles of statistics, as I will discuss shortly.
But even ignoring that, the idea that they can avoid the “inconvenient truth” of their
results by moving the goalposts after the fact is, in and of itself, serious scientific fraud.
To his great credit, Filippo is arguing against this form of subterfuge.
He continues:
2) Do we include the data that disagree in the analysis? I say yes, not having
time for more detailed analysis as to why they should not be included. In
Chapter 9 of the Report they are presented as bracketing the answers, not
as being wrong. This is the problem of not having published research on
this: perhaps a paper would have excluded them on scientific grounds, but
can we, at this point? I am not sure we can have solid enough foundations
to legitimate it. Besides, I have done the analysis without them as well, and
things did not change almost at all.
To any scientist with even a rudimentary knowledge of statistics, this paragraph
shows that the entire IPCC had absolutely no idea what they were doing. Data that
disagree with the other data (“outliers” in the jargon of mathematics, although I
will not use that term here) are of critical importance: understanding them is key to
understanding what your data is telling you; they provide the ultimate “reality check”

20
that you really know what you are doing. They are not “wrong”, as these “scientists” are
suggesting; they should not simply be omitted. Nor should they simply be presented
as “bracketing” the data that do agree.
Again, Giorgi’s comments are a credit to his wisdom and integrity: he urges—
correctly—that if there is no valid reason to exclude the data, then it must be
presented as it stands. He is also arguing against using unpublished (and thus not
peer-reviewed) results, particularly from models such as the Japanese model that have
not been published, and disagree with the results of models that have been published.

September 12, 2000: email 0968774000

Following on from the previous email, Filippo Giorgi writes to the various Lead
Authors, having obtained at least partial agreement with his arguments. He reiterates
his opinion:
I myself think that material for a document as important as the IPCC’s
Third Assessment Report cannot be drawn from last-minute barely quality-
checked and un-peer-reviewed material (people have barely looked at the
Max Planck Institute run that was completed last Friday!).

September 14, 2000: email 0968941827

Recall the discussion above about the criterion used to determine if a set of models
“agreed” with each other. Hans von Storch argues against moving the goalposts:
I have already indicated that I fav[or] the “all models but one have to agree”
version. Obviously, this choice of criterion is arbitrary, but it was made
before we did the analysis. By changing the criterion after we have seen the
data, we may be targeted by critics for biased rules. Using material which
is unpublished and unreviewed is already a bit shaky (Hans Oerlemans is
unwilling to participate in the IPCC process because of a similar incident
in the 1995 report!).
Peter Whetton argues that the criterion is now too stringent, because it gives them
less chance of getting “agreement” purely by luck! He points out that the criterion was
previously only used for five models, for which
… agreement … could be expected 37% of the time just by chance …. With
nine models the equivalent figure for “all models but one have to agree” is
only 3.5%, and it is still much lower for “all models but two have to agree”
(18%)… (assuming that my somewhat rusty probability calculations are
correct). It really depends on what we had understood the purpose of the
criterion to be. I am not certain how much this was discussed.

21
As noted above, standard scientific practice is to ensure that the chances of getting
agreement purely by luck is less than some percentage, often 5 per cent. To argue that
the criterion is too strong because the chance of such a “false (lucky) positive” is only
3.5 per cent—and that the previous situation of allowing a 37 per cent chance of false
positive is far preferable—is simply astounding: it shows a very poor understanding
of the fundamental principles of statistics.
But more astonishing is Whetton’s lack of confidence in performing an elementary
calculation in probability theory that 16-year-old high school students routinely
calculate every day! It would be equivalent to Tiger Woods expressing a lack of
confidence in his ability to decide which wood he should use for a particular hole …

September 22, 2000: email 0969618170

Tom Crowley of the Department of Oceanography at the Texas A&M University
writes to Malcolm Hughes and Keith Briffa, about the huge problems involved in
trying to figure out if the various “temperature proxies” are measuring temperatures,
carbon dioxide levels, or some other complicated combination:
As I discuss in my … paper the “anomalous” late 19th century warming
also occurs in a … tree ring record from central Colorado, the Urals record
of Keith Briffa, and the east China … temperature record of Zhu.
Alpine glaciers also started to retreat in many regions around 1850, with
one-third to one-half of their full retreat occurring before the warming
that commenced about 1920.
…
So, are you sure that some carbon dioxide effect is responsible for this?
May we not actually be seeing a warming?
Malcolm Hughes’s response exemplifies the utter confusion of these researchers:
I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a
direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect,
it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no
meaningful correlation with local temperature.
Why should these topics be so dangerous to write explicitly that they must be implied?
In the mathematical jargon I have omitted from this email—and many others—these
“scientists” explain that sometimes the “proxies” they are using (tree rings, etc.) seem
to measure temperature, and sometimes they don’t (the extremely blunt, simplistic and
naive mathematical test that they use to determine this—something so simple that it
is used every day by high school students—is called “correlation”).

22
What they do is “cherry pick” those proxies that seem to give the “right” answers, and
ignore those that don’t. That’s not just bad science: it’s completely wrong.
Hughes’s next comment exemplifies this “cherry picking”:
I am confident that, before 1850, they do contain a record of temperatures
changing over decades. I am equally confident that, after that date, they are
recording something else.
And, at the end of the day, that’s what this “cherry picking” is based on: the gut feeling
of these scientists.

February 27, 2001: email 0983286849

Phil Jones is upset that Julia Uppenbrink, the Editor at Science, did not send a piece to
them to review, which would have allowed them to block it:
Obviously this isn’t great as none of us got to review it. Odd that she didn’t
send it to one of us here as she knew we were writing the article she asked
us to!
It is noteworthy that these scientists have assumed that every single article published
in Science relating to climate science in any way, would automatically be sent to them
for approval or otherwise.

March 2, 2001: email 0983566497

Chick Keller, of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of
California at San Diego, United States, writes to Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Phil Jones,
Keith Briffa, Tom Crowley, Jonathan Overpeck, Tom Wigley, and Mike MacCracken,
pointing out problems in the historical temperature estimates obtained from individual
“proxy” methods:
Anyone looking at the records gets the impression that the temperature
variation for many individual records or sites over the past 1000 years or so
is often larger than 1° Celsius. … And they see this as evidence that the 0.8°
Celsius or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all that special.
He then makes note of a trick that they have used to mask this effect:
The community of climate scientists, however, in making averages of
different proxies gets a much smaller amplitude of about 0.5° Celsius,
which they say shows that reasonable combinations of effects can indeed
explain this and that the 20th century warming is unique.
Keller realizes the mistake inherent in this trick shortly. First, he provides an excellent
summary of the debate:

23
 Thus, the impasse—one side the skeptics pointing to large temperature
variations in many records around the globe, and the other side saying,
“Yes, but not at the same time and so, if averaged out, is no big deal.”
He then points out that this glib brush-off is simply not valid:
But, just replying that events don’t happen at the same time (sometimes by
a few decades) is the reason might not be enough. It seems to me that we
must go one step further. We must address the question: what effects can
generate large … temperature variations over hundreds of years, regional
though they may be (and, could these occur at different times in different
regions due to shifting climate patterns)? If we can’t do this, then there
might be something wrong with our rationale that the average does not
vary much even though many regions see large variations. This may be the
nub of the disagreement, and until we answer it, many careful scientists
will decide the issue is still unsettled, and that indeed climate in the past
may well have varied as much or more than in the last hundred years.
This remarkable statement—mailed to all of the key players in this scandal—shows
that they knew, clearly, more than eight years before the Climategate whistle-blower
released these emails, that the entire basis of their claims was on shaky ground.
In his last paragraph, Keller points out the elementary mathematical error in the
“averaging trick”:
Also, I note that most proxy temperature records claim timing errors of …
50 years ahead or behind the correct date or so. What is the possibility that
records are cancelling each other out on variations in the hundred-year
time frame due simply to timing errors?
There are, in fact, many more mathematical reasons why the “averaging trick” is
completely wrong; but Keller’s observation is completely correct, and by itself discredits
the entire corpus of work establishing these “multi-proxy” historical temperature
estimates.

May 2, 2001: email 0988831541.txt

Mike Mann criticizes Ed Cook’s work with colleague Jan Esper—not for poor methods
or invalid conclusions, but rather because it was being used publicly, before being able
to be blocked through the peer review process. Firstly, he applies the “peer group
pressure” argument:
We may have to let the peer-review process decide this, but I think you
might benefit from knowing the consensus of the very able group we have
assembled in this email list, on what Esper and you have done?

24
Cook parries admirably:
Of course, I know everyone in this “very able group” and respect their
opinions and scientific credentials. The same obviously goes for you. That
is not to say that we can’t disagree. After all, consensus science can impede
progress as much as promote understanding.
Mann is taken aback, and tries a different tack:
I don’t in any way doubt yours and Jan’s integrity here.
I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publicly, by some,
before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review. Especially because
it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the
work of us, and Phil and his co-workers; this is dangerous. I think there are
some legitimate issues that need to be sorted out ….
I’d be interested to be kept posted on what the status of the manuscript is.
Cook responds with a level of integrity foreign to Mann’s mind-set:
Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the
issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I
ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged
in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving
tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I
don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody
close to it.

May 17, 2001: email 0990119702

Ed Cook makes valid statistical and mathematical criticisms of the error estimation
methods being used by Mike Mann and colleagues:
I have growing doubts about the validity and use of error estimates that
are being applied to reconstructions …. (mathematical reasons follow).
But I really think that uncertainty bars on graphs, as often presented,
may potentially distort and unfairly degrade the interpreted quality of
reconstructions. So, are the uncertainty bars better than nothing? I’m not
so sure.
Mike Mann responds by agreeing that the estimates of uncertainties are wrong, but
that wrong estimates are better than nothing:
What you say is of course true, but we have to start somewhere. …
I firmly believe that a reconstruction without some reasonable estimate of

25
 uncertainty is almost useless! … I believe that this is absolutely essential to
do, whether or not we can do a perfect job.
Cook is arguing that misleading estimates of uncertainties are worse than not
presenting any estimates at all; Mann is arguing that graphs without error estimates
would not look credible, which is more important than the estimates actually being
meaningful.
Cook is correct.

May 23, 2001: email 0990718382

John Christy explains the events of the filming of an episode of “20/20” for the
American Broadcasting Company, in which he fears he will be quoted out of context,
but he includes the following comment:
However, I do agree with the “20/20” host’s premise … that the dose of
climate change disasters that have been dumped on the average citizen is
designed to be overly alarmist and could lead us to make some bad policy
decisions. (I’ve got a good story about the writers of the TIME cover piece
a couple of months ago that proves they were not out to discuss the issue
but to ignore science and influence government.)
Mike Mann’s response to this comment is only thinly veiled:
Your comments below remain disturbingly selective and myopic, and we
have dealt with similar comments many times over… If the American
Broadcasting Company is looking to do a hatchet job on the IPCC so be it
(this doesn’t surprise me—”20/20” co-anchor John Stossel has an abysmal
record in his treatment of environmental issues, from what I have heard),
but I’ll be very disturbed if you turn out to have played into this in a way
that is unfair to your co-authors on Chapter 2 of the IPCC Report, and
your colleagues in general. This wouldn’t have surprised me coming from
certain individuals, but I honestly expected more from you…

July 2, 2001: email 0994083845

Ian Harris of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia writes to the
Norwich Green Party mailing list, responding to a comment that natural events can
cause climate changes that swamp any effects of mankind:
We’re looking at an unprecedented acceleration in temperature … Even if it
turns out to be naturally-occurring, who’s willing to take that chance? We
should be trying to wean ourselves off of unsustainable energy generation
and use anyway.

26
This is a remarkable admission: even if the scientists are completely wrong, we “should”
force changes on mankind that could cost trillions of dollars, on purely ideological
grounds.

December 17, 2001: email 1008619994

Following Phil Jones’s email of February 27, 2001 concerning referees of papers
submitted to Science, Keith Briffa, a referee of a paper submitted to Science by Ed
Cook and Jan Esper, tells Cook:
I simply would not like to see you write a paper that puts out a confused
message with regard to the global warming debate, leaving ambiguity as
to your opinion on the validity of the Mann curve (“the hockey stick”) ….
Briffa is abusing his position of power as a reviewer of the paper, making it clear to
Cook that he will block its publication if they deviate from the “party line”. He twists
the knife, using personal intimidation:
I would not like this affair to ruin my Christmas, as it surely will if it is the
cause of our falling out.
In other words, change the paper, or you are no longer a friend and colleague.
Finally, he lays down his expectations:
I am totally confident that after a day’s rephrasing this paper can go back
and be publishable to my satisfaction by Science.

March 22, 2002: email 1018045075

Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn issued a comment on the paper by Ed Cook and Jan
Esper published in Science. Both papers question the work of Mike Mann and co-
workers. Mike Mann admonishes all of them, copying the email to two staff of The
American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Sadly, your piece on the Esper and Cook paper is more flawed than even
the paper itself. Ed, the Associated Press release that appeared in the
papers was even worse. Apparently you allowed yourself to be quoted
saying things that are inconsistent with what you told me you had said.
You three all should have known better. … In the meantime, there is a lot
of damage control that needs to be done and, in my opinion, you’ve done
a disservice to the honest discussions we had all had in the past, because
you’ve misrepresented the evidence. Many of us are very concerned with
how Science dropped the ball as far as the review process on this paper
was concerned. This never should have been published in Science, for the

27
 reasons I outlined before (and have attached for those of you who haven’t
seen them). I have to wonder why the functioning of the review process
broke down so overtly here.
Keith Briffa replies, refuting Mann’s insinuations and rebuffing his intimidations:
Given the list of people to whom you have chosen to circulate your
message(s), we thought we should make a short, somewhat formal,
response here. I am happy to reserve my informal response until we are
face to face!
…
Finally, we have to say that we do not feel constrained in what we say to the
media or write in the scientific or popular press, by what the skeptics will
say or do with our results. We can only strive to do our best and address
the issues honestly. Some “skeptics” have their own dishonest agenda—we
have no doubt of that. If you believe that I, or Tim, have any other objective
but to be open and honest about the uncertainties in the climate change
debate, then I am disappointed in you also.
Mike Mann is demonstrating his need to be the unchallenged leader of the team, and
his annoyance with anyone who does not toe his line.

March 11, 2003: email 1047388489

A paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published by Climate
Research, which concluded that “the 20th century is probably neither the warmest
nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” Phil Jones writes a
number of emails to his colleagues. In the first:
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore 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.
His conclusions are remarkable, given that he admits that he hasn’t even looked at
the paper as yet. His next email is sent after having read a small amount:
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling … I’ll have time
to read more at the weekend …
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer
they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does.

28
In other words, because these astrophysicists don’t use the mathematically and
statistically incorrect method of “averaging” the various temperature proxies to hide
the variability of temperature in the past, they’re not members of the club!
He continues:
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.
Recall, this action is being taken before he has even read the whole paper even a single
time.
Mike Mann replies:
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”).
In other words, the publication of a single paper critical of their work—which is how
any healthy discipline of science is supposed to work—is, automatically, evidence of a
“hijacking” of an entire peer-reviewed journal.
Mann urges his colleagues to start a witch-hunt:
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
[there follows a link to a page on Climate Research’s website listing the
editors]
Despite the paper having barely been looked at, Mann immediately starts to plan their
retribution:
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

29
 (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 criticising the skeptics for not publishing in
the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that—
take over a journal!
We now see what Mann and colleagues are so upset about: they believed that their cosy
club was safe from intruders, as the only way to challenge them was to be published
in a “peer-reviewed” journal—which they themselves controlled. But now that the
fortifications were breached, the entire house of cards was in danger of falling down.
Mann immediately suggests black-balling the journal that dared to challenge their
authority:
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…
So it’s OK for their gang to control the “peer review” process, but not OK for skeptics
to have any say?

March 11, 2003: email 1047474776

Mike Mann writes:
I do … think there is a particular problem with Climate Research. This is
where my colleague Pat Michaels now publishes exclusively, and his two
closest colleagues are on the editorial board and review editor board. So I
promise you, we’ll see more of this there, and I personally think there is a
bigger problem with the “messenger” in this case…
Phil Jones replies:
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.

30
Using their weight of numbers to “redefine” these historical periods? Is this the genesis
of the Wikipedia censorship scandal?

March 12, 2003: email 1047484387

In trying to decide to which journal they would submit their attack on the Climate
Research paper, Mike Mann illustrates that it is most definitely “not what you know,
but who you know” in this field of science:
Either journal would be good, but Eos (a journal) is an especially good
idea. Both Ellen Mosley-Thompson and Keith Alverson are on the
editorial board there, so I think there would be some receptiveness to such
a submission.
…
If there is group interest in taking this tack, I’d be happy to contact Ellen or
Keith about the potential interest in Eos, or I’d be happy to let Tom or Phil
to take the lead too…

March 12, 2003: email 1047489122

Mike Mann discusses the difficulties in creating the Eos article after learning that the
different sets of results are inconsistent:
There are some notable differences …. The position of Crowley and Lowery,
in particular, is quite inconsistent between our respective comparisons. …
Mann now again suggests that they “cherry-pick” and present only those results that
support the message that they would like to portray:
So, in short, let’s see what we get, and then discuss any similarities or
differences with your result, then make a decision as to what to show in the
Eos piece. I’m sure we can come up with something we’re all happy with…

April 23, 2003: email 1051156418

Tom Wigley writes to a large number of recipients, building on the idea that every
critical or skeptical paper published in the peer-reviewed literature must be due to a
“conspiracy of skeptics”:
Danny Harvey and I refereed a paper by skeptic Pat Michaels and co-
workers and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (de Freitas
again!) and he responded, saying:

31
 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.
Again, Wigley perpetuates the arrogant myth that this small club of scientists should
have the right to interfere with, and ultimately veto, the review and publication process
for each and every paper published in their field. Such censorship is not how a healthy
discipline of science operates; indeed, any discipline that operates in this manner is
not “science” at all.
Wigley continues:
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.
This is a damning admission by Wigley: he acknowledges that these skeptics have
impeccable scientific credentials; the only reason that they should be banned from
reviewing papers for journal publication is that they don’t buy into their dogma of
global warming! This email dispels any doubt that this cosy club redefined “peers” to
mean “scientists who agree with us”—which makes a mockery of the entire idea of
“peer review”.
The ultimate irony in all this, of course, is that skepticism is not a scientific insult, but
rather an essential tenet of the scientific method. Only in debates within dogmatic
theology are sceptics branded as heretics.

April 24, 2003: email 1051190249

Tim Carter, research professor at the Finnish Environment Institute, suggests to Tom
Wigley a way of ensuring that no papers get published without their ability to veto:
On the Climate Research issue … I wonder if a review of the refereeing policy
is in order. The only way I can think of would be for all papers to go through
two Editors rather than one, the former to have overall responsibility, the

32
 latter to provide a second opinion on a paper and reviewers’ comments
prior to publication. A General Editor would be needed to adjudicate in
the event of disagreement. Of course, this could then slow down the review
process enormously. However, without an editorial board to vote someone
off, how can suspect Editors be removed except by the Publisher (in this
case, Inter-Research, the publishers of Climate Research).
Tom Wigley replies:
Re 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.
In other words, Wigley is unambiguously advocating a “smear campaign” against the
journal.
Wigley continues:
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.
Wonderful!

April 24, 2003: email 1051202354

Mike Mann responds to Tom Wigley’s suggestions, again highlighting the fact that the
politics is more important than the science:
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).
So, the conspirators are fortunate to have a man on the ground within the White
House itself.

33
Mann continues:
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 vicious and personal) under the guise of apparently legitimately
reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the “Harvard” moniker in
the process.
Mann’s outrage is laughable: he cannot bear to be criticized by an astrophysicist—from
Harvard, no less.
However, his relief at being able to control almost all of the media is equally evident:
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.
Remember, this retaliation is in response to the publication of a single critical paper—
which in any healthy discipline of science is an absolutely vital, every-day occurrence.
Mann continues to engineer the “spin-doctoring” of this retaliation:
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.
Mark Eakin adds:
Since the White House has shown interest in this paper, the Office of
Science & Technology Policy really does need to receive a measured,
critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’s methods. I agree with
Tom that a noted group … 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.

34
“Ammunition” it is, indeed—for an attempted character assassination. Mike Mann
confirms that he has supplied this “ammunition” to their man in the White House:
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 with specifics
as he confronts the issue within the Office of Science & Technology Policy.
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.

June 4, 2003: email 1054756929

Ed Cook writes to Keith Briffa:
Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got
a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological,
and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from
Berkeley, that claims that the method of mathematics that we use in our
field (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use
your … reconstruction as the main whipping boy.
We now get another glimpse into the impeccable data storage and record-keeping
procedures of these “scientists”:
I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper.
Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect
the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their
claims.
Cook continues:
If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an
ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of filter
theory stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics
appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of
pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved
inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do
lots of computer stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the
deficiencies of our way of doing things, but never actually show how their
method would change your reconstruction from what you produced. Your
assistance here is greatly appreciated.
This is a remarkable email: Cook is admitting that the paper that he has been entrusted
to review “won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics appears to be
correct”! He opines that it suffers the “classic problem” of not hand-holding these
amateurs through the process of doing things correctly!

35
If there was ever any doubt that the fundamental principles of science had been lost
in this discipline, this email absolutely demolishes it. Cook should never have been
entrusted with the task of reviewing this paper.

June 4, 2003: email 1054757526

Mike Mann writes to his many co-authors about the “shock and awe” paper that they
are preparing for publication in Eos. We see the “War on the Medieval Warm Period”
germinating:
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.
That the goal of discrediting the existence of the Medieval Warm Period was decided
upon before having any definitive data one way or the other (Mann describes some
preliminary results, but says that they are not “kosher”) provides irrefutable evidence
that this was an ideological crusade, not a scientific investigation.

July 3, 2003: email 1057941657

The Director of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, investigated the complaints about the
editorial and refereeing process, and wrote:
Dear 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 co-worker 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 analysed 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.

36
Mike Hulme forwards this email to Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, and Mike Mann:
So, this would seem to be the end of the matter as far as Climate Research
is concerned.
Mike Mann is not willing to let it go at that:
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.
Tom Wigley realizes that such tactics amount to scientific blackmail:
I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a de Freitas clone. However, what
would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell people
to avoid the journal?
Ben Santer has no such qualms:
Based on 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 co-workers paper. We’ll
publish this rebuttal in the Journal of Geophysical Research—not in Climate
Research.

July 22, 2003: email 1058906971

Mike Mann exerts “peer group pressure” on the co-authors of the Eos article to start
yet another petition—this time to be sent to the United States Congress:
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on
Capitol Hill, Michael Oppenheimer and I thought it would be worthwhile
to send this letter to various members of the United States Senate,
accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing
your preferred title and affiliation). We would like to get this out as soon
as possible.
Jonathan Overpeck realizes the danger in signing on to such a petition, without
carefully considering the huge ramifications:

37
 I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign—at least
not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is
unprecedented and political, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.
To his great credit, Overpeck understands the ramifications of crossing the line
between honest scientific research, and pure political activism:
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine
a special-interest organization or group doing this, like all sorts of other
political actions, but is it something for scientists to do as individuals?
It just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything
with out real thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in
support.
Is it acceptable for taxpayer-funded scientists to advocate political issues?

July 31, 2003: email 1059664704

Tim Osborn writes to Mike Mann, trying to make sense of some of Mann’s data, which
appear to have simplistic estimates of uncertainties. After an exchange in which Mann
attempts to explain what he has done, he adds:
Tim,
Attached are the calculations requested …
p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to ensure
absolutely clarity on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use,
since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others
without checking with me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one
doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to
distort things…
In other words, Mann lacks so much confidence in his own calculations that he refers
to them as his “dirty laundry”, that is to be hidden from scrutiny at all costs.
And this is the basis of global climate policy.

August 19, 2003: email 1061298033

Tom Wigley to many, reiterating their confident assumption that they should have
absolute veto power over any publication in any journal:

38
 I have been closely involved in the Climate Research fiasco. I have had
papers that I refereed (and soundly rejected), under de Freitas’s editorship,
appear later in the journal—without me seeing any response from the
authors. As I have said before to others, his strategy is first to use mainly
referees that are in the anti-greenhouse community, and second, if a paper
is rejected, to ignore that review and seek another more “sympathic”
reviewer. In the second case he can then (with enough reviews) claim that
the honest review was an anomalous data point that can be ignored.
Again, Wigley’s view is so myopic that any dissenting opinion must be “dishonest”.
He then has the gall to suggest formalizing this closed-shop mentality:
I agree that an ethics committee is needed and I would be happy to serve
on such a committee. It would have to have endorsement by international
societies, like the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of
Natural Knowledge, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the
Academy of Europe, plus the Royal Meteorological Society, the American
Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, etc.
Now that would really provide fertile ground for institutionalized bullying and
ideological exclusion!
Wigley continues:
Jim Titus mentioned to me that in the legal profession here people are
disbarred for behavior like that of de Freitas (and even John Christy—
although this is a more subtle case). We cannot do that of course, but we
can alert the community of honest scientists to such behavior and formally
discredit these people.
The Danish Academy did something like this recently, but were not entirely
successful.
This sentence refers to the attempt by the Danish Academy to blackball Bjørn Lomborg.
Wigley then joins the chorus of conspirators urging that the journal be black-balled:
In the meantime, I urge people to dissociate themselves from Climate
Research. The residual “editorial” (a word I use almost tongue in cheek)
board is looking like a rogues’ gallery of skeptics. Those remaining who are
credible scientists should resign.

August 19, 2003: email 1061300885

Tom Crowley realizes that the gang needs more ammunition against the astrophysicists
Soon and Baliunas, who seem to avoid the worst of their “peer group pressure” at in-
bred scientific meetings:

39
 We need some data on Soon and Baliunas. One of my concerns is that they
only publish in low-impact journals, and completely bypass the normal
give-and-take of presentations at open scientific meetings (for example, I
think I have probably heard 100 presentations overall from the people on
this mailing list).
His implication is that, if you repeat something enough times—to a sympathetic
audience—it somehow becomes more credible. From this hypothesis, he develops an
entire line of attack on these interlopers:
It is therefore very important to inquire, for the sake or our exchanges with
reporters, legislators, etc, as to how often any of you may have heard Soon
or Baliunas give a talk in an open meeting, where they could defend their
analyses.
Please respond to me as to whether you have heard either of them present
something on their climate analyses (I think I heard Baliunas speak once
on her astrophysics work, but that doesn’t count).
I will let you know the results of the poll so that we may all be on the same
grounds with respect to the data, and reporting such information to press
inquiries, legislators, etc.
Tom Wigley proposes a tactic that is pure disinformation:
Might be interesting to see how frequently Soon and Baliunas, individually,
are cited (as astronomers).
Are they any good in their own fields? Perhaps we could start referring to
them as “astrologers”(excusable as … “oops, just a typo”).
Mike Mann recommends counting citations (“my count is bigger than yours”)—a
practice that is meaningless when the members of a small discipline repeatedly cite
each other’s papers:
I checked this out prior to my United States Senate hearing. Their science
citations in the climate literature are poor, as one would hope and expect.
Interestingly, they both drop their second initials when publishing in the
climate literature so that their names don’t turn in up in the citation index if
you do a search on their publications in the astronomy literature (which use
the full initials)—apparently, they don’t want their astronomy colleagues
to be aware that they’re moonlighting as supposed climatologists…
What a bizarre theory!
Mann is forced to acknowledge that his research into their publication record is
disheartening:

40
 Their numbers are better in the astronomy literature, though Soon’s
numbers even here are mediocre.
Baliunas had some well-cited publications more than a decade ago. This is
her work on the use of sun-like stars as a model for solar variability, etc.,
which is well referenced in the astrophysics community. However, most of
these appear to be her Ph.D. work, and appear to have been published with
her Ph.D. adviser.
Which is, of course, absolutely standard practice—and indicates that her PhD work
was both original and useful to the astrophysics community. Mann continues:
Not much evidence however that she has made any useful, independent
contribution since then. There are some additional papers she’s published
on time series analysis of solar signals—looks like the kind of stuff you
might expect to see from a graduate student first-year research project….
This is the ultimate irony, given that Mann and his colleagues demonstrated their
absolute ineptitude in this very area of mathematics—called “time series analysis”—
that is needed to properly understand their temperature proxy data.
Mann now suggests that they “cherry-pick” their citation record to give the misleading
impression of a low citation count, by ignoring their publications in astrophysics:
In my opinion, it would be a mistake to evaluate these on their citations
numbers in astronomy. We should focus on their numbers in the climate
literature, which are the only ones relevant when discussing the issue of
how their work on climate is received by their fellow scientists.

September 3, 2003: email 1062592331

Ed Cook writes to Keith Briffa, describing his experiences with Ray Bradley at a
conference in Norway:
After the meeting in Norway, … hearing Bradley’s follow-up talk on
how everybody but him has fucked up in reconstructing past Northern
Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 years (this is a bit of an
overstatement on my part, I must admit, but his air of papal infallibility is
really quite nauseating at times), I have come up with an idea that I want
you to be involved in.
Cook describes his idea of publishing a paper, with a large author list—possibly
including Bradley, Phil Jones, and Mike Mann—but notes the problems with the idea:
I am afraid that Mike Mann and Phil Jones are too personally invested
in things now (i.e. the 2003 Geophysical Research Letters paper that is
probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in—Bradley hates

41
 it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they can contribute
without just defending their past work—this is the key to having anyone
involved. Be honest. Lay it all out on the table and don’t start by assuming
that any reconstruction is better than any other.
This is testament to the parlous state of this field: that an established member of this
group is reduced to suggesting that a paper be written in which past mistakes are no
longer covered up.
Cook’s suggestions end with comments that are only half-humorous:
7) Publish, retire, and don’t leave a forwarding address
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost
think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can
probably say a fair bit about … temperature variability within a century
(at least as far as we believe the temperature proxy estimates), but that we
honestly know fuck-all about what the … variability was like on timescales
greater than a century with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that
we know fuck-all).
Cook’s “calling a spade a spade” immediately endears him to my heart, and gives us
confidence that he is expressing his genuine opinion. And while that opinion agrees
completely with my own assessment of this field of science, it is astounding to hear it so
explicitly (and colourfully), directly from the mouth of one intimately involved in this
case: temperature variations within a century can probably be reliably estimated, but we
can conclude absolutely nothing about temperature variations over longer time-scales.
That, dear reader, is the absolute crux of the global warming question: whether current
temperature changes are “unprecedented” over historical time periods. Here we have,
in no uncertain terms, a definitive statement that we have no idea if this is the case.
The jury is dismissed. Mankind has been found not guilty of all charges.

October 2, 2003: email 1065125462

Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph writes to Mike
Mann:
Dear Professor Mann
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”.
This is the paper just referred to by Ed Cook as being “the 2003 Geophysical Research
Letters paper that is probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in—Bradley
hates it as well”.

42
 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
A reasonable request, one would think. Here is Mike Mann’s response:
Dear Mr. Matthews,
Unfortunately Phil Jones is travelling 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 Corporation, 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.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Mann

43
I don’t think the message gets much clearer than that—Robert Matthews is black-
balled on both sides of the Atlantic!
Note the common threads being weaved by Mike Mann here. Firstly, he hides behind
the pretence of “peer-reviewed literature”, safe in the knowledge that he and his
collaborators have that avenue under their control. Secondly, he bullies Matthews
by forwarding his email to as many collaborators as possible, so that they all know
that they are not to speak to him under any circumstances. Thirdly, with great
condescension, he tells the journalist that the answers to his questions are self-evident
from their paper, if only he had the intelligence to understand it.
These are the tactics of an academic bully. Real scientists don’t need to hide behind
such intimidation.

October 13, 2003: email 1066337021

John Holdren, now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and in 2003 at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Department
of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, responds to a request from a
John Shulz, editor of TCSDaily:
As you no doubt have anticipated, I do not put Mann and co-workers in
the same category with Soon and Baliunas.
If you seriously want to know “Why not?”, here are three ways one might
arrive at what I regard as the right conclusion:
(1) For those with the background and patience to penetrate the scientific
arguments, the conclusion that Mann and co-workers are right and that
Soon and Baliunas are wrong follows from reading carefully the relevant
Soon and Baliunas paper and the Mann and co-workers response to it:
(cites the papers)
This is the approach I took. Soon and Baliunas are demolished in this
comparison.
In other words, Holdren is gratuitously arguing that it is “self-evident”, if you are
intelligent enough to read the papers. Next:
(2) Those lacking the background and/or patience to penetrate the two
papers, and seriously wanting to know who is more likely to be right, have
the option of asking somebody who does possess these characteristics—
preferably somebody outside the handful of ideologically committed and/
or oil-industry-linked professional climate-change skeptics—to evaluate
the controversy for them. Better yet, one could poll a number of such
people. They can easily be found by checking the web pages of earth

44
 sciences, atmospheric sciences, and environmental sciences departments
at any number of major universities.
In other words, Holdren is implying that if you’re too dumb or too lazy to read the
papers, then simply ask the members of the “club”!
His last alternative:
(3) The least satisfactory approach for those not qualified for (1) and
lacking the time or initiative for (2), would be to learn what one can
about the qualifications (including publications records) and reputations,
in the field in question, of the authors on the two sides. Doing this
would reveal that Soon and Baliunas are, essentially, amateurs in the
interpretation of historical and paleoclimatological records of climate
change, while the Mann and co-workers’ authors include several of the
most published and most distinguished people in the world in this field.
Such an investigation would also reveal that Dr. Baliunas’s reputation in
this field suffered considerable damage a few years back, when she put her
name on an incompetent critique of mainstream climate science that was
never published anywhere respectable but was circulated by the tens of
thousands, in a format mimicking that of a reprint from the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, in pursuit of signatures on a petition
claiming that the mainstream findings were wrong.
This text could have been taken straight out of a dirty tricks manual on “disinformation”,
character assassination, and dishonest techniques for discrediting opposition!
Holdren now displays his flair as an intelligence agent, by pointing out the obvious
flaws in his last suggestion—and then covering them up with yet more insinuations of
laziness and inability, and a bogus “probability” argument:
Of course, the third approach is the least satisfactory because it can be
dangerous to assume that the more distinguished people are always right.
Occasionally, it turns out that the opposite is true. That is one of several
good reasons that it pays to try to penetrate the arguments, if one can, or
to poll others who have tried to do so. But in cases where one is not able or
willing to do either of these things—and where one is able to discover that
the imbalance of experience and reputation on the two sides of the issue is
as lopsided as here—one ought at least to recognize that the odds strongly
favor the proposition that the more experienced and reputable people are
right. If one were a policy maker, to bet the public welfare on the long odds
of the opposite being true would be foolhardy.
Are you convinced yet?

45
October 26, 2003: email 1067194064
Mike Mann receives secret information about the forthcoming McIntyre and
McKitrick paper, which marks the start of the debunking of the “hockey stick”:
Two people have a forthcoming Energy and Environment paper that’s being
unveiled tomorrow (Monday) that—in the words of one Cato Institute /
Marshall Institute / Competitive Enterprise Institute type—
… will claim that Mann arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own
record and substituted other data for missing values that dramatically
affected his results.
When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater
than the 20th century.
Personally, I’d offer that this was known by most people who understand
Mann’s methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early
centuries.
In other words, most of Mann’s colleagues were fully aware of the problems.
Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s
very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I
hope he has) from the past….
Mike Mann passes this on to a large number of colleagues:
Dear All,
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain
in confidence. Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use
of data made. It’s clear that Energy and Environment is being run by the
baddies—only a shill for industry would have republished the original
Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to Climate Research without even
editing it. Now apparently they’re at it again…
A remarkable conclusion, given that he hasn’t read the paper yet!
He continues:
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as a stunt, appearing in a so-called “journal” which is
already known to have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear,
for example, that nobody we know has been asked to “review” this so-
called paper;

46
Again, Mann displays characteristic arrogance in assuming that each and every paper
submitted for publication should automatically be passed to one of his gang, so that
it can be vetoed.
He continues:
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of
course, the usual suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important
thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if
contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.
Thanks for your help.
How on earth can Mann tell others to discredit this paper, before anyone has actually
read it? Simply because it disagrees with him?

October 30, 2003: email 1067532918

Ray Bradley writes to Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Mike Mann, and Malcolm
Hughes, offering a novel definition of the term “independent”:
Tim, Phil, Keith:
I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments
involved, to an uninformed 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 the Climatic Research Unit
could make a statement as to whether the McIntyre and McKitrick effort is
truly an “audit”, and whether they did it right, I think that would go a long
way to defusing the issue.
This one statement alone is sufficient to see through the repeated bogus claims of
“independent” verification of results by other groups. “Independence”, for these
cowboys, means asking a group from another institution (preferably an overseas one)
to rubber-stamp their findings.
He continues:
If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished
Climatic Research Unit Boys would help quash further arguments,
although here, at least, it is already quite out of control…
Indeed it is.

November 12, 2003: email 1068652882

Tim Osborn writes to Keith Briffa and Phil Jones, discussing a request by Steve

47
McIntyre (not included, but we can infer the nature of the request shortly):
You will have seen Stephen McIntyre’s request to us. We need to talk about
it, though my initial feeling is that we should turn it down (with carefully
worded/explained reasons) as another interim stage and prefer to make
our input at the peer-review stage.
Osborn then forwards an email that Steve McIntyre wrote to Mike Mann and Tim
Osborn, asking for data that is in dispute, and asks that erroneous statements be
publicly withdrawn:
In the meantime, here is an email (copied below) to Mike Mann from
McIntyre, requesting data and programs (and making other criticisms). I
do wish Mike had not rushed around sending out preliminary and incorrect
early responses—the waters are really muddied now. He would have done
better to have taken things slowly and worked out a final response before
publicising this stuff. Excel files, other files being created early, or now
deleted, is really confusing things!
Osborn is describing a flurry of activity by Mann and colleagues, whereby data files
were hastily cobbled together using Microsoft Excel (which should not have been
necessary: the data should have been available for scrutiny or distribution at any
time), posted to the download site, then quickly withdrawn as elementary errors were
evident.
This is clear evidence that it was only the increasingly persistent demands of Steve
McIntyre and others that caused this group to start cleaning up their data, into what
was only a superficial semblance of acceptability.
Osborn then expresses relief that they are now “off the hook” regarding McIntyre’s
earlier request:
Anyway, because McIntyre has now asked Mann directly for his data and
programs, his request that we send McIntyre’s request to Mann has been
dropped (I would have said “no” anyway).
Is it any wonder that getting the data and computer programs from these “scientists”
was more difficult than pulling teeth? Perhaps dictionary pages for the word
“obstruction” should be redirected here…

January 16, 2004: email 1074277559

The journal Climatic Change requests from Phil Jones that Mike Mann’s data and
computer programs be made available, to check that the calculations are reproducible
by other scientists. Jones writes to a large number of climate scientists, hosing down
the need for such action:

48
 1. The papers that McIntyre and McKitrick refer to came out in Nature in
1998 and to a lesser extent in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999. These
reviewers did not request the data (all the temperature proxy series) or the
computer programs. So, acceding to the request for this to do the review is
setting a very dangerous precedent. Mike has made all the data … available
and this is all anyone should need. Making computer programs available
is something else.
Jones is arguing for despicable double standards: he and his colleagues continue to
cite these papers, by the dozen, as the “gold standard” of the global warming debate;
but when asked to substantiate the claims made in them, he effectively argues that it
is “past history”—and if they got away without providing the programs to the peer
reviewers in 1998 or 1999, then they should be scot-free forever!
He continues:
2. The computer programs are basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In
the Geophysical Research Letters paper (in 2003 by Mann and Jones), we
simply average all the data sets we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as for Mann, Bradley, and Hughes in 1998 in Nature, and for
Mann, Bradley, and Hughes in 1999 in Geophysical Research Letters.
More misdirection. “Averaging the data sets together” is not “simple”—or, rather,
if they did do it “simply”, that is, naively, then not only is it statistically invalid and
completely meaningless, but the computer program should be so simple that there
should be no reason not to release it. Even Jones is forced to use the qualifier “pretty
much”.
Jones’s next misdirection:
3. As many of you know, I calculate temperature data each month. Groups
at the National Climatic Data Center and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies do this as well.
We don’t exchange computer programs—we do, occasionally, though,
exchange the data. The computer programs here are trivial as they are in
the paleoclimatology work.
Again, if the computer programs were trivial, then surely they could be distributed
without any qualms at all.
Note that Jones is here admitting that the various groups do not even check each other’s
programs, let alone make them available for independent scrutiny. In other words,
they have not been checked outside their own lab at all. He furthermore admits that the
data are only checked “occasionally”.
Jones now widens the crack of self-contradiction:

49
 Mann, Bradley, and Hughes get geographical patterns, but the bottom line
(the 1000-year series of global temperatures) is almost the same if you
simply average.
Ah-ha! “Almost” the same. And it is the panoply of subtleties that come into that
“almost” that necessitates careful checking and validation.
He continues to explain why none of this is in the least bit “trivial”:
The geographical patterns give more, though, when it comes to trying to
understand what has caused the changes—e.g. by comparison with models.
McIntyre and McKitrick are only interested in the Northern Hemisphere
and Global 1000-year data sets—in fact only in the Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes work from 1400.
Perhaps realizing that he is arguing against his own thesis, Jones now tries to argue
that Mann is being victimized:
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics
(for want of a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other
data sets that I’ve produced, as has Keith Briffa … and Tom Crowley. Jan
Esper’s work has produced a slightly different data set but we don’t get
bombarded by McIntyre and McKitrick. Mike’s paper wasn’t the first. It
was in Nature and is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to
concentrate their effort onto one person as they did with Ben Santer after
the second IPCC report.
Apart from answering his own question—Mann’s “hockey stick” work is held up by
all of them, including in their role as the voice of the IPCC, as the gold standard—
Jones’s argument is ridiculous. Mann’s data and programs should not be scrutinized,
simply because other people’s data haven’t yet been scrutinized? That sounds like a
good Catch-22 argument for preventing the process from starting at all!
Jones now displays the ultimate in hypocrisy:
5. … I found out later that the (skeptic) authors of a paper were in contact
with the reviewers up to a week before the article appeared. So there is peer
review and peer review!! Here the peer review was done by like-minded
colleagues.
As the Climategate emails show, Mann, Jones, and their colleagues were not only in
contact with their reviewers, but regularly chose them—or applied detective work to
determine who they were—as a matter of course! It is unbelievable that they seem
unable to recognize that they themselves do precisely what they accuse others of
doing—and they openly discuss it!
Now, in contrast to the above carefully-constructed defence, consider the following
email: Jones frantically leaks the journal’s request to Mike Mann:

50
 Subject: Climatic Change needs your advice—YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!

Mike,

This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading—please! I’m trying
to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should
make all available!! Pot calling the kettle black—Christian doesn’t make
his methods available. … I told Steve separately, and told him to get more
advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal
department.

PLEASE DELETE—just for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm
Hughes.

Jones’s blind panic—in private to Mann—speaks volumes. He is so scared of the

ramifications that he even asks that Mann destroy the email immediately.

Are these the actions of scientists with nothing to hide?

January 29, 2004: email 1075403821

Phil Jones forwards to Mike Mann an email advising the sudden death of Australian
climate skeptic John Daly:

It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden
death of John Daly. Condolences may be sent to John’s email account
([email protected]).

Reported with great sadness

Timo Hameranta, LL.M.

Moderator, Climatesceptics

Jones’s comments:

In an odd way this is cheering news! One other thing about the Climatic
Change paper—just found another email—is that McKittrick says it is
standard practice in Econometrics journals to provide all the data and
computer programs!! According to legal advice, Intellectual Property
Rights overrides this.

Ignore Jones’s insensitive comments regarding an opponent’s death, if you can. What
is remarkable here is that Jones apparently finds completely bizarre and foreign the
idea that the data and methods used to arrive at a scientific conclusion should be
made available for independent scrutiny! This is astounding: these requirements are
fundamental to the entire scientific method, through its demands of reproducibility:

51
any scientist, anywhere in the world, must in principle be able to reproduce and verify
a scientific result, before it is even considered to be a result at all.
Of course, in the context of the climate debate, Jones’s arrogance is far more damning:
these results, central to their call on world leaders to enact treaties and legislation
that would have huge ramifications for the world’s peoples, should have been audited,
scrutinized, validated, and verified with greater thoroughness than possibly any other
results of modern science. To have Jones and Mann argue that the data and programs
central to these recommendations are “private property”—protected by patent and
copyright laws—is astonishing.

February 2, 2004: email 1075750656

Keith Briffa makes an astounding comment to Rashit Hantemirov, regarding a request
made of Hantemirov:
Dear Rashit
Thanks for this—these people ask many questions as they try constantly to
attack the global warming proponents. I answer sometimes, but it usually
means they come back with many more questions. All part of science, I
suppose.
Indeed!
It is remarkable, firstly, that Briffa describes himself and his colleagues as “global
warming proponents”, rather than “researchers”, “investigators”, or even just “scientists”.
Surely they are not meant to be “proponents” of a predetermined view? A Freudian
slip on Briffa’s part, perhaps?
Secondly, Briffa’s bewilderment that anyone would question them over their work—
and that an answer would not simply provide a brush-off, but may well stimulate
follow-up questions—is indicative of an extraordinary confidence in their infallibility.

February 4, 2004: email 1076083097

A large number of collaborators are discussing ways to avoid providing Steve McIntyre
with enough of the computer programs actually to check their results. Linda Mearns,
Senior Scientist at the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, writes:
My point about the computer programs is still that “providing the
programs” can be interpreted a lot of ways. I have thought about this, and
imagined if in one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to
provide all the programs. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a
summary file explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically

52
 allows someone to see how the programming was done. And I do think
that is a far sight easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am
suggesting that one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn’t
faced with garish headlines about “refusal to provide programs”. I think
it is harder to come up with a garish headline about “refusal to provide
completely documented programs with appropriate instructions files and
hand-holding for running it”.
Mearns’ overwhelming concern with newspaper headlines, rather than scientific
corroboration and validation, is the mark of a political operator, not a scientist.
Mearns’ argument is effectively this: if we are forced to provide the computer
programs, then let’s break them up into the smallest possible pieces, so that McIntyre
can see roughly what we have done, but would have an almost impossible task putting
the pieces back together again so that it could be used—sort of a “Humpty Dumpty”
version of transparency and full disclosure.
Phil Jones realizes that this won’t fool many: if they had done the science properly, then
the computer programs and supporting documentation would be readily available for
anyone to use, without any further work:
So now it seems that we’re separating “providing the programs” from
“running the programs”. I can’t see the purpose of one without the other.
Even if Mike Mann complies, I suspect there will need to be several sessions
of interaction to explain how to run the programs, which neither side will
be very keen on.
Jones is savvy enough to understand that providing un-runnable programs will lead
to an immediate request or demand for assistance in actually getting them to run.
He now admits that, even with possession of the programs and the data, a lot of “fiddling”
is needed to get to their claimed results:
As I said before, I know that running the programs will involve lots of
combinations (for different time periods with different temperature
proxies).
He further realizes that validating their programs would require validating their
mathematical “number-crunching” programs—often shared between different
programs, and hence called “library routines”:
Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the mathematical approach
that we use, that there will be library routines. We don’t want McIntyre
(and McKitrick) to come out and say that he can’t get it to work after a few
days.
At least Jones understands the realities of the situation—although it is surprising
that he doesn’t know for certain whether they use library routines or not. One must

53
wonder about the environment which the more junior scientists are accustomed to,
for them to be seriously considering withholding parts of the programs to prevent
them from being usable.
Jones continues:
So, it is far from simple. I’m still against the computer programs being
given out. Mike has made the data available. That is all they should need.
The method of calculations is detailed in the original paper … and also in
several other papers Mike has written.
In other words, the skeptics have a description of what was done—and that should be
enough.
Then this bombshell:
As an aside, Mike Mann is now using a different method from the paper of
Mann, Bradley, and Hughes of 1998.
So even if McIntyre and colleagues follow the method described in the 1998 paper,
they still won’t obtain agreement with what Mann is now doing!
Could there be any clearer argument for providing the exact computer programs and
methodology used for each and every published paper? Jones apparently can’t see how
ridiculous his words are.
He continues:
It might appear that they want the programs to check whether their version
works properly. If this is the case, then there are issues of Intellectual
Property Rights. So, if they get the programs, how do we stop them using
it for anything other than this review?
God forbid that any other scientists should be given assistance in researching this issue
of critical importance to humanity! Jones’s treatment of their data and research, paid
for by the taxpayers, as “private property”, for them to exploit without challenge—to
the exclusion of all other scientists—is astonishing.

February 9, 2004: email 1076336623

Steve McIntyre has been trying to get raw data, and writes to Australian Antarctic
scientist Tas van Ommen:
Dear Dr van Ommen,
Some time ago I inquired as to the availability of the … data set which
was used in the paper of Mann and Jones in 2003. Is this the same data as
was used in Jones and co-workers in 1998 (in the journal The Holocene)?

54
 Do you plan to make available a public archive of this data? Otherwise, I
would appreciate an email copy of the data.
Thanks for your consideration.
Stephen McIntyre.
Van Ommen forwards the ensuing email exchange to Phil Jones:
What you will find below is … an email interchange between Steve McIntyre
and myself. He has been asking for Antarctic data for a while (since your
Geophysical Research Letters paper came out) and to my chagrin; I have put
him off once already, for reasons I spell out below. …
Anyway, I am aware of McIntyre’s controversial history and am trying to
handle things in a non-inflammatory way. He seems not to be troubling me
over my own delay, but has asked for data that was used in your Holocene
paper of 1998. For this, I have referred him to you. I expect he wants to
replicate your calculations, and so he should use the identical data set, and
I give you permission to pass on whatever it was I gave you for that work—
with the caveat that it is representative of where the Antarctic proxy record
was in 1997, not 2004. I leave it to you to decide how to deal with this—you
may prefer to ignore the issue, and I would understand.
Van Ommen clearly understands that it is crucial for McIntyre to be given the identical
data set in order to replicate Jones’s calculations—but then goes on to condone what
he guesses will be Jones’s likely response: to ignore the issue completely.
Phil Jones replies, copying in Mike Mann:
Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn’t contacted me directly about
the Antarctic data (yet), nor about any of the data used in the 1998
Holocene paper or the 2003 Geophysical Research Letters one with Mike
Mann. I suspect (hope) that he won’t. I had some emails with him a few
years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use
here in Climatic Research Unit. At that time, I hid behind the fact that
some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly
from Met(eorological) Services through the Global Telecommunications
Service (GTS) or through the Global Climate Observing System.
We here start to learn about the tricks that Jones and colleagues have used to thwart
attempts to get access to the data on which their published claims are based: to “hide
behind”, in Jones’s words. In this case, Jones is trying to argue that data provided
by individuals does not need to be provided for independent scrutiny—yet the
mathematical results obtained from those very data can be published in leading
journals, which then makes it eligible to be used to support their statements in the
IPCC Reports!

55
He continues:
Emails have also been sent to some other paleoclimatology people asking
for data sets used in 1998 or 2003. Keith Briffa here got a request, for
example. Here, they have also been in contact with some of Keith’s Russian
contacts. All seem to relate to trying to get data that we’ve used. In the
Russian case, issues relate to the Russian (Rashit Hantemirov) having a
paper out with the same data that Keith used …. The data are different for
two reasons. One reason is that Keith used (a mathematical method on the
data); and, secondly, Rashit has added some data since Keith got the data
a couple of years ago.
Jones is here giving yet more reasons why the original data should be made available.
So what will he do?
I’ll just sit tight here and do nothing. Mike will likely do the same, but we’ll
expect another publication in the nearish future.

February 9, 2004: email 1076359809

Steve McIntyre follows the trail from Tas van Ommen to Phil Jones:
Dear Phil,
Tas van Ommen has referred me to you for the version of his data set that
you used in the paper of Jones and co-workers in The Holocene in 1998,
and I would appreciate a copy. I would also appreciate a copy of the Lenca
data used in this study. Regards, Steve McIntyre
Phil Jones forwards this to Mike Mann:
For your information. I sent him the two data sets—the as-received
versions. I wonder what he’s up to? Why these two data sets? We used a lot
more in the 1998 paper. He didn’t want the Alerce data. He must already
have the Tassy series from Ed. I know that Ed has a more recent series than
we used in 1998. He got this for the 2003 work.
Why is Jones so concerned at what McIntyre is “up to”? Honest scientists welcome
every chance for independent researchers to check and (hopefully) confirm their
results: it gives them extra credibility. Instead, Jones seems to be worrying about
which “skeleton in the closet” McIntyre may be on to.
Mike Mann replies:
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.

56
Mann is behaving more badly than Jones. He seems to revel in the fact that McIntyre
will still be missing some of the data:
There are a few data sets from our 2003 paper that he won’t have—these
include the latest data from Jacoby and D’Arrigo, which I scanned in 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 1999 Geophysical
Research Letters paper to remove the estimated non-climatic component.
In other words, unless McIntyre and colleagues were able to follow the procedure
described in Mann’s and Jones’s 1999 paper—without the aid of the computer
programs used to apply those methods, which they are refusing to supply—then they
will be unable to even get hold of the fundamental data on which Mann’s and Jones’s
research is based! No wonder Mann is confident that their secrets are safe.
He continues, admonishing Jones for his weakness:
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!
Peril? That is not a word that an innocent man would use.
Jones is now forced to defend his act of sending McIntyre two data sets:
These were two simple data sets to provide. Also, Tas told him that I had
one of them. I guess that these are the ones that aren’t available on web sites.
Anyway, it is done now. If he starts asking for them in dribs and drabs, I’ll
baulk at that.
Ben waded in with very positive comments regarding the Climatic Change
issue. Steve McIntyre’s going to find it very hard to ask you to send the
computer programs. Those … on the Climatic Change board that say that
you should send the programs have little idea what is involved. Most are
on the social science side.
One set of “soft” scientists belittling another set of “soft” scientists? Are there any real
scientists doing climate science?
Yet again, we find that Jones sees the issue of accountability as a series of battles, rather
than a looming war.

February 26, 2004: email 1077829152

Phil Jones to Mike Mann:

57
 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.
An interesting way to manipulate the peer-review process, and a novel definition of
“squeaky clean”!

May 7, 2004: email 1083962601

Phil Jones to Tas van Ommen and Caspar Ammann:
Many of us in the paleoclimatology field get requests from skeptics (mainly
a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for data. Mike Mann and
I are not sending anything, partly because we don’t have some of the data
he wants, also partly as we’ve got the data through contacts like you, but
mostly because he’ll distort and misuse them.
Again, Jones writes with crystal clarity on the big issues. The three reasons for hiding
the data: the skeptics will check their work; some of the data was destroyed or lost; and
the data is “private property” in any case!

July 8, 2004: email 1089318616

Phil Jones to Mike Mann:
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
For your interest, there is a report coming out soon, which shows that
Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded, as
the first author is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden
in the middle of the report.
He sends a follow-up email:
For your information only—don’t pass on. … As I said it is worded carefully
due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows they’re wrong, but he
succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might
affect her proposals in the future! I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how
you use it—if at all.

58
This pair of emails demonstrates most clearly that one was either “in the club” or not,
as far as these conspirators were concerned. The paper by Kalnay and Cai was skeptical
of man-made global warming. Here, Phil Jones is telling Mike Mann that the paper has
been shown to be wrong—in a written report, no less. Yet Jones condones the fact that
the criticism is being buried: he is accepting that “peer review” has been distorted into
whatever the reviewer wants it to be, rather than its intended mechanism: ensuring
that published papers are correct.

Contrast this to their actions on hearing of skeptical papers being published by those
not “in the club”: they organize letters of protest to journals, and to the White House,
even before they have read the papers at all! Indeed, Jones exemplifies their approach,
just two paragraphs on:

The other paper by McKitrick and Michaels is just garbage—as you knew.
De Freitas is the Editor again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by
replying to the mad Finn as well—frequently, as I see it. I can’t see either of
these papers being in the next IPCC Report. Kevin and I will keep them out
somehow—even if we have to redefine what the “peer-review literature” is!

This pervasive inculcation of double standards—not just between the proponents and
skeptics (their terms) of global warming, but between different “classes” of skeptics,
no less—destroys the very fabric of science.

August 6, 2004: email 1091798809

Phil Jones replies to a favourable comment by Australian climate scientist, Janice

Lough:

Janice,

Most of the data for most of the graphs have just appeared on the Climatic
Research Unit web site. Go to “data”, then to “paleoclimate”. We did this to
stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the datasets. Mike Mann refuses to
talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find
if we’ve done anything wrong.

He continues:

I sent one of them loads of data sets and he barely said a thank you.

Jones’s imperious comment shows that he considers that he is doing the skeptics a
huge favour by providing the data that is central to his claims. In reality, the “onus of
proof ” is on him and his colleagues.

59
August 10, 2004: email 1092167224
Mike Mann writes to Phil Jones, Gabi Hegerl, and Tom Crowley:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
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.
So here we are, in mid 2004, before Mike Mann finally feels the need to bring his
computer programs up to the standard that would be required of any high-school
student—and not because of any feelings of guilt about their parlous state, but simply
because “the heat was on” from the skeptics, and it becoming increasingly likely that
he would be forced to provide these programs for independent scrutiny in the near
future.
To anyone who has spent their career performing numerical computations, Mann’s
email is simply astounding. Firstly, by “cleaning up” his programs, he is not, in fact,
providing the programs that generated the results that his publications were based on;
he is providing an altered version. It would be like the police prosecutor “cleaning up”
the evidence before showing it to the jury.
Second, Mann’s admission that his programs were previously undocumented—an
admission that he will repeat shortly—destroys any residual credibility that any of his
scientific work may have otherwise retained—period. Masses of formulas, without
any explanation of what they are doing or why they are being applied, are worse than
useless.
Third, it is unfathomable that it is only at this late date that Mann even suggests that
his “trusted colleagues” check that his programs produce the results he claims—let
alone that what has been programmed is even mathematically or statistically correct.
In other words, none of the results of any of these “scientists” are ever checked by anyone
prior to publication. That is simply beyond belief.
Fourth, Mann again damns himself by expressing his fear that his programs—even
after being cleaned up and documented—will get into the hands of the “wrong people”.
One might wonder whether all of this astounding incompetence might cast doubts
on Mann’s results. But wait! There is no need to speculate: Mann himself provides
the first answer, in the very same paragraph, with what must make him eligible for an
honorary role in Monty Python:

60
 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…
Yes, the world will take this into account: Don’t trust the Mann and Jones data at all.
Mann’s lack of honesty is manifest in his own words: he himself discovers, in his own
bird’s nest of “spaghetti programming”, that he made a careless error; but rather than
declare it as such—to even his closest colleagues—he whitewashes it as “not necessarily
wrong, but it makes a small difference”.
Hilariously, Mann then suggests that his comedy of errors might provide a good
opportunity for publishing another of his illustrious publications, rather than a
correction to the original:
Phil: is this worth a follow-up paper to Geophysical Research Letters, with a
link to the computer programs?
Roll credits.

September 28, 2004: email 1096382684

Andy Revkin, Environment Reporter for The New York Times, writes to Tim Osborn:
Again, the take-away message is that Mann’s method can only work if past
variability is the same as the variability during the period used to calibrate
your method.
So it could be correct, but it could be very wrong as well.
By the way, von Storch doesn’t agree with Osborn and Briffa on the idea
that higher past variability would mean there’d likely be high future
variability as well (bigger response to greenhouse gases).He simply says
it’s time to toss the “hockey-stick graph” and start again; he doesn’t take it
further than that.
Is that right?

61
So The New York Times should have headlined, “Climate Change Scientists Could Be
Very Wrong,” and sub-headlined, “Time to Toss the Hockey-Stick Graph.” Or is that
not “Fit to Print”?

December 10, 2004: email 1102687002

Gavin Schmidt, of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of the United States
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA GISS), writes to many:
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 at:
http://www.realclimate.org
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
on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
- Gavin Schmidt
- Mike Mann
- Eric Steig
- William Connolley
- Stefan Rahmstorf
- Ray Bradley
- Amy Clement
- Rasmus Benestad
- William Connolley
- Caspar Ammann
The propaganda war goes digital!

62
Somewhat hilariously, the “RealClimate.org team” in the signature block contains the
name William Connolley twice. Did this infamous “Wikipedia censor” hack into their
own announcement email?
(William Connolley is a climate modeller who established himself as an editor at
Wikipedia and with a cadre of supporters he controlled all entries relating to climate,
climate change and the people involved. This included putting up false material about
skeptics. They constantly monitored the entries and if anyone tried to correct anything
it was rapidly returned to the original false information. With so many people, they
could easily circumvent the limit on the number of edits per person. As a designated
editor, Connolley had even more latitude.)

January 6, 2005: email 1105019698

David Parker, of the United Kingdom Met(eorological) Office, writes to Neil Plummer,
Senior Climatologist at the National Climate Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology,
Melbourne, Australia:
There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of the IPCC
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.
And we can’t give that impression, can we?

January 20, 2005: email 1106322460

Steve Mackwell, Editor in Chief of Geophysical Research Letters, writes to Mike Mann,
who evidently complained because he was not able to “look over” a manuscript,
critical of his own work, prior to its publication:
Dear Prof. 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
knowledgable 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

63
 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.
Mike Mann forwards this response to a number of his colleagues:
Dear All,
Just a heads-up (warning). 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 co-workers papers
with Michaels and Singer, the Soon and co-workers paper, and now this
one have gotten published in Geophysical Research Letters.
Tom Wigley writes:
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.
Mike Mann responds in terms we would expect from a political apparatchik rather
than a genuine scientist.
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!
Malcolm Hughes suggests using the Editor-in-Chief ’s words as a loophole:

64
 Does it not … follow that if you were to challenge their “work” in “full-
up scientific manuscript”, but not as a “Comment”, then it, too, should be
reviewed without reference to McIntyre and McKitrick?
But Mann is adamant that Geophysical Research Letters is to be black-balled:
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 co-workers paper. These were all pure crap.
There appears to be a more fundamental problem with Geophysical
Research Letters now, unfortunately…
Four “contrarian” peer-reviewed papers? Intolerable!

January 21, 2005: email 1106338806

Tom Wigley writes to Phil Jones, primarily about a Review Panel by the VTT Technical
Research Centre in Finland:
Tom Karl told me you will be on the VTT Review Panel. This is very good
news.
However, he brings up a new concern:
I got a brochure on the Freedom Of Information Act from the University of
East Anglia. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program
we have to give it out?? Can you check this for me (and Sarah Raper)?
Phil Jones is confident that it won’t be a problem:
On the Freedom Of Information Act, there is a little leaflet we have all
been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do regarding
programs or data. Like all things in Britain, we will only find out when
the first person or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the
Freedom Of Information Act in Britain. I don’t think the University of East
Anglia really knows what’s involved.
However, he also starts the process of finding loopholes in the legislation:
As you’re no longer an employee, I would use this argument if anything
comes along.
Tom Wigley replies:
Thanks for the quick reply.

65
 The leaflet appeared so general, but it was prepared by the University
of East Anglia so they may have simplified things. From their wording,
computer programs would be covered by the Freedom Of Information
Act. My concern was if Sarah is/was still employed by the University of
East Anglia. I guess she could claim that she had only written one tenth of
the programs, and therefore only release every tenth line of the programs.
This is an ingenious attempt to find a loophole, but one unlikely to succeed.
Wigley returns to the original topic:
Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially) (on the VTT Review Panel). You
probably know the panel members. … As token skeptic there is Dick
Lindzen—but at least he is a smart guy and he does listen.
Glad to know that the “token skeptic” has been appointed! I guess we don’t need to
wonder what conclusion that Panel will come to!
Phil Jones replies, refining the loophole even further:
As for the Freedom Of Information Act, Sarah isn’t technically employed
by the University of East Anglia and she will likely be paid by Manchester
Metropolitan University.
Not that she wouldn’t be covered by the Act: merely that she would be paid by a
different University!
He continues:
I wouldn’t worry about the computer programs. If the Freedom Of
Information Act does ever get used by anyone, there is also Intellectual
Property Rights to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements
we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any
requests onto the person at the University of East Anglia who has been
given a post to deal with them.
So, yet again, Phil Jones has found another cubby hole: this time behind the various
dubious agreements that they have signed with individuals and institutions, giving
them legal assurance that the data would remain private, despite the publications and
policy recommendations derived from it being most definitely public.
So that’s three potential loopholes: no longer employed by us; intellectual property
rights; and the data are not ours to give.

February 2, 2005: email 1107454306

Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann:

66
 Just sent loads of … data to Scott Rutherford. Make sure he documents
everything better this time!
So it isn’t until 2005 that they decide it is time to document what they are doing?
And don’t leave stuff lying around on anonymous download sites—you
never know who is trawling them. McIntyre and McKitrick have been after
the Climatic Research Unit … data for years. If they ever hear there is
a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll
delete the file rather than send it to anyone.
Wonderful.
Does your similar Act in the United States force you to respond to enquiries
within 20 days?—ours does! The United Kingdom works on precedents, so
the first request will test it.
How uncivilized: actually being forced to respond to enquiries!
We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind.
Ah, we were wondering how long it would take him to find a loophole to hide behind.
Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it—he
thought people could ask him for his computer programs. He has retired
officially from the University of East Anglia so he can hide behind that.
Every civilized man should have something to hide behind.
Intellectual Property Rights should be relevant here, but I can see me
getting into an argument with someone at the University of East Anglia
who’ll say we must adhere to the Freedom of Information Act!
God forbid: someone there will insist on them abiding by the law?
Mike Mann responds:
Yes, we’ve learned our lesson about anonymous download sites. We’re
going to be very careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really
screwed up big time when he established that directory so that Tim could
access the data.
Fancy giving independent scientists access to the data!
Yeah, there is a Freedom Of Information Act in the United States, and the
contrarians are going to try to use it for all it’s worth. But there are also
intellectual property rights issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of things
will play out ultimately in the United States.
Ah, similar hiding places on the other side of the Atlantic, too.

67
February 21, 2005: email 1109021312
Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann, Ray Badley, and Malcolm Hughes, regarding news
reports that Mann will be forced to release his data:
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here!
…
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!
…
PS 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!
One would think that, eventually, people would realize this without having to be told
…

March 17, 2005: email 1111085657

Ray Bradley writes to Phil Jones and Mike Mann, alerting them to a report by the
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on the controversy raging over the infamous
“hockey stick” graph. Jones replies to Bradley:
I tried to convince the reporter here that there wasn’t a story, but he went
with it anyway. At least he put in a quote from me …
Mike Mann responds:
Yes, the BBC has been disappointing in the way they’ve dealt with this—
almost seems to be a contrarian element there.
This is awful. The BBC does not simply parrot their words?
They had better find the culprit:
Do you remember the name of the reporter you spoke to?
Jones:
The reporter was Paul Rincon.
Mann:
I’ve got a call in from a different BBC reporter today, Ben Dempsey, who
seems much better. He’s doing something for Horizon on climate change.
Do you know anything about this?

68
Phil Jones:
On Horizon, I’m supposed to be called in a few minutes by someone. I’m
not sure who yet. This program is generally good. They did something on
global dimming a few months ago and now want to do something on the
truth about global warming, the IPCC and skeptics. That’s all I know so
far. The person’s name is Paul Olding. He should be calling at 2:00 pm, so
in five minutes’ time.
In other words, it’s acceptable for the BBC to be biased—as long as it is in their
direction.

April 27, 2005: email 1114607213

Steve McIntyre writes to Phil Jones:
Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the
other multiproxy temperature publications, I’ve been looking at Jones
and co-workers paper of 1998. The methodology here is obviously more
straightforward than for the Mann, Bradley, and Hughes paper of 1998.
However, while I have been able to substantially emulate your calculations,
I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the early
time periods.
Since I have been unable to replicate your results exactly based on available
materials, I would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in the Jones
and co-workers paper of 1998 as well as the computer programs used in
these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication of results by independent
scientists by … some distinguished economists (gives link), discussing the
issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our
attempts to replicate results in respect to the paper of Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes from 1998.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
Phil Jones forwards it to Mike Mann:
I got this email from McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he
has the data—sent ages ago. I’ll tell him this, but that’s all—no computer
program. If I can find the program, it is likely to be hundreds of lines of
undocumented FORTRAN!

69
Any computer programmer would know that FORTRAN—a computer language so
old that its name is spelt in uppercase, because computers did not have lowercase
letters back then—is very efficient at performing mathematical calculations, but very
obscure to understand if extensive documentation is not provided throughout the
program on a line by line basis, and very easy to make mistakes in if the program is
not well-structured and well-documented.
So we now know that the Climatic Research Unit had no policies covering the
checking of results, data archiving, or anything to control the writing and archiving of
computer programs!
That the claims of climate change could rest on such a parlous state of affairs would be
hilarious, if it were not so serious.
Jones continues to reminisce about his FORTRAN program:
I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know
why he can’t replicate the results early on—it is because there was a
mathematical adjustment when there were fewer data sets.
In other words, McIntyre was exactly correct: the data did not match in the earlier
time periods, because Jones’s program—the one that he refuses to hand over—fiddled
with the data.
It is remarkable that the only thing that Jones can remember about this work from
seven years previously is that he had to adjust the data.

June 27, 2005: email 1119901360

Jonathan Overpeck writes to Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn, and Eystein Jansen, concerned
about highly influential early diagrams first “created” by Hubert Lamb, pioneer of the
Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Lamb boosted funding for
climate research in the mid-1970s by promoting the Ice Age scare, which famously
made the front cover of Time Magazine.
I’m sure you saw the recent (to be infamous) Wall Street Journal editorial—
they showed what I think was a IPCC First Assessment Report curve—
with the good old Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, etc. (Lamb
view?—I don’t have the First Assessment Report with me). The way to
handle the hockey stick might best be to put it in an historical perspective
along with the older IPCC views. First, show your great figures, discuss
them and what went into them, and then—after showing the state-of-the-
art, discuss how much our understanding and view have changed. In this,
simply compare each of the historical views (First Assessment Report,
Second Assessment Report, Third Assessment Report) to the current view,
and while doing so, play down the controversy(s)—especially the hockey

70
 stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in the news is just that,
but those with a real stake in that debate will hopefully get the point that
it doesn’t matter…
This is a remarkable admission. It was the work of Hubert Lamb and others (to be
discussed at greater length shortly) that sparked the fears of climate change in the first
place. Just as these scientists “re-branded” their claims—from the “Greenhouse Effect” to
“Global Warming” to “Climate Change”—so too did they change their apparently “rock
solid” results, through the First, Second, and Third Assessment Reports of the IPCC.
The Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age—so well established in
both history and the scientific evidence that these very scientists showed them clearly
on their graphs in the 1991 Assessment report—gradually became “undesirable”, as
it was realized that it would not simply be sufficient to show the planet warming, but
essential to argue that it was unprecedented warming.

The IPCC’s temperature curve in 1991

Temperature change (°C)

Little Ice Age

Mediaeval Warm
Period

1000 AD 1500 AD 1900 AD

Year

But by this time—mid-2005—the mainstream media had begun to take note of the
increasing number of scientists crying foul over this subtle but systematic form of
scientific revisionism—more than four years before the exposure of the “Wikipedia
censor”, William Connolley.
Overpeck is here effectively telling his colleagues that “the evidence doesn’t matter”—
that all that is important is that, at any point in time, they had some evidence that
apparently substantiated their claims. That they subsequently discredited their own
evidence is to be swept under the rug!
If there was any lingering doubt that these “scientists” were simply working towards
justifying a predetermined conclusion, rather than honestly seeking the scientific
truth, then these comments—and those to follow—eliminate them.

71
June 27, 2005: email 1119924849
Jonathan Overpeck writes again to Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn, and Eystein Jansen, over
the brewing storm:
The recent Wall Street Journal editorial that is creating all the crap in the
United States actually showed a graph from the IPCC First Assessment
Report—if you don’t have it, or Eystein can’t send it, I can scan it in (my
Republican Dad sends me these things, although he’s an increasingly rare
breed of moderate Republican). My thought is that it might be worth
adding a couple lines of text documenting how the IPCC view of the
Medieval Warm Period changed with each of its Assessment Reports and
new knowledge. In doing so, it could be made very clear that there is a
reason that scientists don’t show those old graphs anymore. We need to
move the debate beyond the IPCC’s First Assessment Report, Second
Assessment Report, and Third Assessment Report on this issue!
In other words, these scientists themselves have discredited their own IPCC claims;
their only problem is achieving their revision of history—even to the point of “moving
beyond” their most recent IPCC Report!

June 28, 2005: email 1119957715

A Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives is investigating Mike
Mann’s scientific claims. Mann writes:
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 Oppenheimer responds:
This is outrageous. I’ll contact some people who may be able to help right
away.
Tom Wigley responds:
I would not advise a legal route. I think you need to consider this as just
another set of referees’ comments and respond simply, clearly and directly.
In contrast to Mann and Oppenheimer, Wigley obviously believes, at this point in time,
that Mann has nothing to hide. Rather, he thinks it is a politically based campaign:
Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism
of you personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global
warming science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have
ulterior motives.

72
However, his true colours quickly shine through: this is an opportunity to weed out
those who are not “on the team”:
There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that
there has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor
level. The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-
greenhouse view. Recent papers in Geophysical Research Letters (including
the McIntyre and McKitrick paper) have clearly not been reviewed by
appropriate people. We have a strong suspicion that this is the case, but,
of course, no proof because we do not know who the reviewers of these
papers have been. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation
and request (or demand) that this information be made available. In order
to properly defend the good science it is essential that the reasons for bad
science appearing in the literature be investigated.
We need not wonder from which ranks the “appropriate people” should be chosen.
Further on, Wigley uses a curiously appropriate turn of phrase:
The others who could be added to this email list at this early stage are Ray
Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, your “co-conspirators”—and perhaps Phil
Jones, Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn.
Well, that answers the question of whether it is fair to call them “(co-) conspirators”:
it is their own term!
One would imagine that Wigley would suggest that Mann use these other colleagues
to support his scientific claims. But the reality is the exact opposite:
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.
And that is the final nail in the coffin of one of the greatest scientific frauds in the
history of mankind: Wigley has demonstrated that all of the temperature estimates for
before 1850—the period needed to show that the warming is “unprecedented”—are so
discrepant as to be inconclusive.
Mike Mann, as always, is concerned about himself:
Thanks—yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States.
Fortunately, we have some good people who will represent us legally pro
bono, and in the best case scenario, this backfires on these thugs…

73
 The response of the wording is likely to change dramatically after
consultation with lawyers …
It is remarkable that Mann ignores completely Wigley’s dire warnings that his results
are wrong; his only concern is obtaining free legal advice to ensure that he does not
have to testify before Congress. We note that he is now drawing in his co-conspirators:
his terminology has shifted from “me” to “us”.

June 28, 2005: email 1120014836

Jonathan Overpeck indicts his own IPCC co-authors:
Also, please note that, in the United States, … Congress is questioning
whether it is ethical for IPCC authors to be using the IPCC to champion
their own work and opinions. Obviously, this questioning is wrong and
scary, but if our goal is to get policy-makers (liberal and conservative alike)
to take our Chapter of the IPCC Report seriously, it will only hurt our
effort if we cite too many of our own papers (perception is often reality).
Please do not cite anything that is not absolutely needed, and please do not
cite your own papers unless they are absolutely needed. This is common
sense, but it isn’t happening. Please be more critical with your citations so
we save needed space, and also so we don’t get perceived as self-serving,
or worse. Again, we can debate this if anyone thinks I’ve gone off the deep
end.
Overpeck is absolutely correct; to even feel the need to make these comments to his
co-authors is noteworthy. That he thinks his co-authors may believe him to have “gone
off the deep end” is surprising—yet Eystein Jansen does disagree:
Having the fortune of not being that close to the darker sides of United
States politics, I have the feeling that Peck’s comment concerning
referencing perhaps is a bit too “paranoic”.

July 5, 2005: email 1120593115

Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy:
This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research
Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached
article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me
in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has,
but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.
Again, Jones’s ability to concisely summarize the key facets of this scandal is admirable.
That this leader is scared of his own “scientific community”—to the point of his not

74
being allowed to state something publicly which he acknowledges is actually true, is
telling. Could you imagine how intimidated the more junior scientists would be?
It is also extremely telling that Jones excuses his silence on the grounds of statistical
insignificance only for facts, such as these, that go against the “relentless warming”
message. In fact, his own colleagues have shown that all of their temperature estimates
lack statistical significance. The correct course of action would be to be silent.
Later in the same email:
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.
So Jones would prefer catastrophic global warming actually to occur, just so that he
could bask in the accolades of being “proved” right! Ignoring the fact that catastrophic
global warming—if it occurred—would not prove whether mankind’s liberation of
carbon dioxide was a causative factor at all, Jones’s “ego trip” death-wish offers us yet
another insight into his character.

July 6, 2005: email 1120676865

Neville Nicholls, of the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne,
Australia, asks Phil Jones:
Do you expect to get a call from Congress?
Jones replies:
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.
The fact that Jones received these grant moneys from a foreign government department
is not an issue; it is a normal and healthy part of scientific research. What is astounding
is his hiding of the fact. It is standard scientific practice to acknowledge all sources of
funding, however indirect. For example, in the Acknowledgments section of a paper
that my PhD supervisor and I had published in the International Journal of Modern
Physics in 1992, we include the following sentence:
We warmly thank the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of
Washington for its hospitality and the United States Department of Energy
Grant #DOE/ER40561 for partial support during the completion of this
work.
This is absolutely standard practice—and the Department of Energy Grant
acknowledged here was not even funding us directly, but rather the Institute for

75
Nuclear Theory itself, which hosted both of us for some months in early 1992. That
Jones not only did not acknowledge his sources of public funding, but moreover
hoped that he could keep the fact hidden to avoid proper scrutiny by the United States
Congress, is another black mark on his record.

July 25, 2005: email 1122300990

Tom Crowley to Jonathan Overpeck, Keith Briffa, and Eystein Jansen:
Hi all, there is another reason why I should not be formally listed as a
Lead Author—it is my understanding that IPCC contributors have to be a
little careful about getting involved in political matters that could be used
to impugn the integrity of the process—well, I am starting to do just that,
with the attached comment in Eos, plus some radio interviews where I
have been somewhat pointed in my thoughts.
I suppose it’s still OK to be a reviewer, but even then you might keep these
comments in mind.
Crowley’s realization, and offer to recuse himself, is admirable. It is a pity that more of
his colleagues did not share his sense of integrity and impartiality.

July 26, 2005: email 1122422429

Tim Osborn writes to Keith Briffa, Jonathan Overpeck, and Eystein Jansen:
As you’ll have seen from Tom Crowley’s replies to my fairly direct requests
for the data that went into his Medieval Warm Period graph, he seems
somehow reluctant to send it to me and prefers me to find it myself
(including spending a week re-assembling a Mongolian data set). I have
no time to do this, so have instead reverted to using the very similar data
that we already had.
It is astounding that even Crowley’s own colleagues were rebuffed in their requests for the
data that went into this important graph, and basically told to “figure it out yourself ”.
It is therefore not surprising that independent auditors were met by outright hostility!

August 4, 2005: email 1123163394

Phil Jones and Mike Mann again demonstrate their real forte: intelligence gathering.
Phil Jones:
If you’ve not gone to China yet—you’ll meet someone called Martin Dukes
(?). He’s giving a talk at your session. He knows about mathematics, etc.,

76
 but not much about paleoclimatology! He might need some education, but
is probably OK. I have not met him, but Tim has. He is doing some worked
funded by the Dutch government on the “hockey stick” graph.
Mann:
Thanks, yes I’m in China now. …
Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because
he was working with Stott and co-workers, and so I assumed that he was
legitimate, and not associated with the contrarians. But if he’s associated
with the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have additional
information about him and what he has been up to?
Jones:
He’s been working with Myles Allen. Tim went to the first meeting of this
Dutch-funded project near Oxford last week.
Tim said they were doing some odd things …
The meeting wasn’t that productive, according to Tim. There was a belief
amongst those there that all the trees you used have lost their low-frequency
information (the information needed to estimate long-term trends). …
Tim got the impression that they wanted to find that Mann, Bradley, and
Hughes (the “hockey stick” paper) is wrong. …
Martin isn’t associated with the contrarians, but he’s not in possession of
… all the facts.
Mike Mann:
Thanks for the heads-up (warning). I will be prepared for this, then. I
thought that Gabi Hegerl was involved with this guy? Doesn’t she know
better? It is disturbing that she hasn’t set them straight on this.
Phil Jones:
Gabi was supposed to be there, but wasn’t either. I think Gabi isn’t being as
objective as she might, because of Tom Crowley. …
What more needs to be said?
Jones now makes a remarkable comment, about something that is elementary even to
high-school science experiments:
There is an issue coming up in the IPCC. Every graph needs uncertainty
bars, and having them is all that matters. It seems irrelevant whether they
are right or how they are used.

77
In other words, he is only concerned that they give the appearance of estimating
the uncertainties in their predictions, rather than actually getting those (subtle and
difficult) vital calculations right.

August 5, 2005: email 1123268256

Jonathan Overpeck writes to Tim Osborn, Eystein Jansen, Keith Briffa, and Oyvind
Paasche, regarding increasing problems around the Medieval Warm Period:
I hope you’re not going to kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon
today, and she impressed me with the need to make several points if we
can.
One issue … is whether we can extend the Medieval Warm Period graph
to include the 15th century. I don’t read the blogs that regularly, but I guess
the skeptics are making hay of there being a global warm event around
1450. I agree with Susan that it is our obligation to weigh in on issues like
this, so… can we extend the graph to extend up to 1500?

August 8, 2005: email 1123513957

Tim Osborn responds to Jonathan Overpeck:
There is a period around 1400 when the temperature proxy records we’ve
used in this Medieval Warm Period graph do indicate a warm period—and
all records show higher temperatures at the same time. Thus it couldn’t/
shouldn’t be dismissed in the same way as the Medieval Warm Period…
That the goal should be to “dismiss” anything is in itself disturbing. However,
Overpeck’s response is astounding:
This means that the Medieval Warm Period graph needs to talk about the
period around 1400—can you make sure that’s on Keith’s radar screen.
I believe that historians talk about the Medieval Period going to at least
1450, so what the heck…
One would have thought that, for these scientists to “dismiss” the Medieval Warm
Period, their knowledge of it should have been encyclopaedic (but not, of course,
wikipedic). Instead, they are being educated by their critics—even resorting to the
historian’s definition of “Medieval” to limit the scope of their investigations.
We get the picture of a group of scientists running around putting out fires, rather
than performing a careful, comprehensive investigation before making their public
pronouncements.

78
August 25, 2005: email 1124994521
Mike Mann writes to Christoph Kull, Phil Jones, Heinz Wanner, and others:
In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct
me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (with question
marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict
than to contribute to consensus and progress.
Phil Jones to Christoph Kull:
I agree with Mike that the last two names on the list should be removed.
Debate and disagreement is crucial to the healthy functioning of science. Weeding out
those who may prevent a predetermined “consensus” is abhorrent.

August 26, 2005: email 1125067952

Heinz Wanner to Christoph Kull:
Concerning the participants:
…
- If Phil and Mike do not support von Storch it does not make sense to
invite him (or Eduardo Zorita?).
Mike Mann concurs:
I’m afraid I don’t agree on Zorita. He has engaged in some very nasty, and
in my opinion unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues
of mine who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in
work he co-published with von Storch. Given this, I don’t believe he can
be involved in constructive dialogue of the sort we’re looking for at this
workshop.
Again, a “constructive” dialogue appears to be one that leads to their predetermined
“consensus”.
He continues:
There are some similarly problematic issues with Cubasch, who, like von
Storch, … has engaged in inflammatory and personal public commentary.
There is no room for that on any side of the debate.
If the Germans need to be represented here, I would suggest instead
someone from the Potsdam group, such as Eva Bauer …

79
Our attention is here drawn to an undercurrent in this entire saga: the need to give
the perception of international agreement—which translates into the notion of the
need for a “quota” of representation from the key countries involved, rather than true
international debate.

September 19, 2005: email 1127614205

Steve McIntyre to the IPCC Working Group I:
For the unpublished articles referenced in the draft IPCC Working Group
I Report, could you also provide locations of download sites where the
underlying data may be reviewed.
In a follow-up email:
I have been unable to locate supplementary information or data archives
for several of the articles posted … and would appreciate assistance in this
regard.
Martin Manning to Jonathan Overpeck and Eystein Jansen:
Following the release of the first draft of the Report we have had a response
from Steve McIntyre (a name that should ring a bell) regarding unpublished
literature in our Chapter. He also asks about access to data sets but that is
not an IPCC function so is easily dealt with.
Again, a technicality to “hide behind”.
Manning continues:
I am attaching the correspondence with McIntyre below for your
information, but the only issues you need to consider are those above, and
we will handle any further interactions with McIntyre from here.
In other words, McIntyre will be “handled”, obviating the need for the scientists who
authored the papers to deal with him.

September 27, 2005: email 1128000000

Steve McIntyre writes to Colin O’Dowd, Editor of Journal of Geophysical Research:
Dear Dr O’Dowd,
I am a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report … and am writing
in respect to a submission to your journal by D’Arrigo and co-workers …
This article was referenced in Chapter 6 of the Draft Report and made
available to IPCC reviewers. In the course of my review, I contacted the

80
 senior author, Dr. D’Arrigo, for the download location of the data used in
this article, or for alternative access to the data. Dr. D’Arrigo categorically
refused, and I was referred to the journal editor if I desired recourse.

Data Citation and Archiving

I point out that American Geophysical Union (AGU) policies for data
citation and data archiving (provides link) specifically require that authors
provide data citation according to AGU standards, and require that
contributors archive data in permanent archives, such as the World Data
Center for Paleoclimatology.

In cases where the data has been archived, it has not been cited according
to AGU policies. …

In order that this submission comply with AGU policies on data archiving,
I request that you require D’Arrigo and co-workers do (1) provide accurate
data citations complying with AGU policies for all data sets presently
archived at the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology; (2) archive all
“grey” data used in the article.

A reasonable request, one would think?

Rob Wilson forwards the request to Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa:

Please see the e-mail (attached) from Steve McIntyre to the Editor of the
Journal of Geophysical Research. This seems a major abuse of his position
as reviewer for the IPCC?

Tim Osborn replies to Rob Wilson and Keith Briffa, including Rosanne D’Arrigo in
his response:

Dear Rob and Rosanne,

I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as an IPCC reviewer!

The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I think there’s no
need for the data you used to be publicly available until the paper is actually
published …

In other words, they should be able to use the pending publication in their IPCC
Chapter, but at the same time block McIntyre’s ability to review the paper on the
technicality that it has not actually been published at the time that he wishes to review
it! This is a remarkably duplicitous tactic.

Osborn finishes with a call to round up the troops:

81
 I will take this issue up with the Chapter Lead Authors and the Working
Group 1 technical support unit—unless you prefer that I didn’t. Please let
me know.
Osborn then keeps the process rolling, writing to Phil Jones, Eystein Jansen, Jonathan
Overpeck, and Keith Briffa:
Dear Phil, Eystein and Peck,
I’ve already talked about this to Phil and Keith, but for Eystein’s and Peck’s
benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre downloading a copy of
a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleoclimatology chapter …
Rosanne replied to my email below, to say that they do want this taken
further. So…
Phil has agreed to forward these messages to Susan Solomon and Michael
Manning.
Eystein and Peck: do you want to add anything too?
It almost goes without saying that actually providing McIntyre with the data would
take far less collective effort than this rearguard action.

November 15, 2005: email 1132094873

Mike Mann writes to Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, and Keith Briffa:
I’m not sure if you guys are aware: McIntyre presented this poster at the
Climate Change Science Program meeting. Apparently, they gave him a
very prominent location, so that everyone entering the meeting would
have seen the poster…
Even a poster at a conference is enough to get the intelligence chatter going!
Tim Osborn replies:
Thanks for this, Mike. We’d spotted an earlier draft of his poster and were
a bit concerned about this receiving prominence at the meeting. Did it
arouse much discussion, do you know?
Mann:
He almost had a point with a mathematical issue, but as we all know,
that doesn’t matter at all in the end. The issue isn’t whether or not he’s
right, as we all well know by now, but whether his false assertions have
enough superficial plausibility to get traction. In this case, they might, so
it’s probably good to at least be prepared.

82
It is astounding to see Mann acknowledging that McIntyre’s criticisms of their
mathematical methods are correct, and nevertheless believing that it doesn’t really
matter to the “big picture”. This is a common theme: it doesn’t matter if each and
every piece of evidence is systematically shown to be flawed; all that matters is that
the “proponents” can jump to a new claim to justify their predetermined conclusions.
That mode of operation is as false in science as it is in the law.
Mann continues:
I was told by a journalist Paul Thacker that his poster got prominent
placement; probably not an accident (see forwarded email). I believe that
Mike Schlesinger and David Karoly were there in the same session, so it
might be worth checking with them. I think Connie Woodhouse and Tom
Wigley were also at the meeting, but not sure…
If the science were rock-solid, why would they be obsessed with finding out the identity
of the person who was responsible for the prominent placement of a dissenting poster?
Mann reports victory in at least one battle:
The Geophysical Research Letters leak may have been plugged up now
with new editorial leadership there, but these guys always have Climate
Research and Energy and Environment, and will go there if necessary. They
are telegraphing quite clearly where they are going with all of this…
So they have “taken back control” of at least one journal.
However, Keith Briffa remarkably acknowledges that, despite all this political
manoeuvring and interference, the scientific arguments of McIntyre are actually valid:
… so they are sort of right that the emphasis on 1032 is probably overdone.
Isn’t that what these scientists should be concentrating on?

December 2, 2005: email 1133532909

Mike Mann writes to many:
I thought you all would be interested in this. Esper and co-workers have
played right into the hands of the contrarians:
(FOX News story link)
The wording of their Abstract is frankly just irresponsible…
In other words, they are to be condemned for being honest and for failing to dress up
their statements in sufficiently alarmist tones.

83
February 3, 2006: email 1138995069
Keith Briffa is still struggling with the fact—already highlighted above by Tom
Wigley—that, when the uncertainties in their temperature estimates are reported
fairly, they completely “swamp” the variations that they are trying to use to bolster
the conclusion of man-made global warming. He writes to Jonathan Overpeck and
Eystein Jansen:
We are having trouble … expressing the real message of the results—being
scientifically sound in representing uncertainty, while still getting the crux
of the information across clearly. It is not right to ignore uncertainty, but
expressing this merely in an arbitrary way (and as a total range as before)
allows the uncertainty to swamp the magnitude of the changes through
time.
But that is the truth of the matter! Perhaps “the penny is starting to drop” for Briffa.

February 13, 2006: email 1139835663

The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United States invites
Keith Briffa to appear before its enquiry in Washington, D.C. Keith Briffa writes to
Mike Mann:
IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be
frank, I am inclined to decline. What do think? Presumably you and others
are already in the frame?
Mann remains keen for his co-conspirators to be in the frame. He responds:
I think you really should do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely
legitimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as
you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton
affair. … Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim I think its
really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.
Congressman Joe Barton was Chairman of the US House of Reps Committee which
commissioned leading American statistician Edward J Wegman with other colleagues
to separately examine the data and methodology leading to the publication of Mann’s
Hockey Stick. Their report was damning.
If one is wondering about Mann’s definition of “legitimate”, he quickly erases any
doubt:
The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and
the other members are all solid. Christy is the token skeptic, but there are
many others to keep him in check:

84
 (link to list of members)
So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider!
Ah! In other words, the panel is already “stacked”; it is friendly; and so there is no
danger in Briffa appearing before it.
However, Briffa’s lack of confidence is manifest:
Thanks for this, but after a lot of soul-searching this weekend, I have
decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is intense—but the
real reason is that I really think it could be politic to retreat into “neutral”
mode, at least until after the IPCC Report is out. I know you can argue this
various ways, but the skeptics are starting to attack on this “non neutral”
stance, and the less public I am at the moment, the better, I think. I hope
you do not think I am a wimp here—just trying to go the way I think best.
Mann, who no doubt understands the message that non-appearance by one of their
key scientists would send, tries to get Briffa to reconsider:
I’m pretty sure they’re just asking for a neutral discussion of the science that
you’ve done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed by the Committee
(after all, this is the United States National Academy of Sciences, not the
United States Senate, etc.). But I understand where you’re coming from,
nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternative speaker? Is there any
possibility that Tim could do this instead? My greatest fear is that McIntyre
dominates the discussion. It’s important that they hear from the legitimate
scientists.
Again, we know what Mann’s definition of “legitimate” is.

March 8, 2006: email 1141398437

Richard Alley writes to Jonathan Overpeck:
Do you know anything about the “divergence problem” in tree rings?
Rosanne D’Arrigo talked to the National Research Council yesterday.
I didn’t get to talk to her afterward, but it looked to me that they have
redrilled a bunch of the high-latitude tree rings that underlie almost all
of the high-resolution estimates, and the tree rings are simply missing
the post-1970s warming, with reasonably high confidence. She didn’t
seem too worried, but she apparently has a paper just out in the Journal
of Geophysical Research. It looked to me like she had pretty well killed the
“hockey stick” graph in public forum—they go out and look for the most-
sensitive trees at the edge of the treeline, flying over lots and lots of trees
that are less sensitive but quite nearby, and when things get a little warmer,
the most-sensitive trees aren’t sensitive any more; and so the trees miss

85
 the extreme warming of the recent times, and can’t reliably be counted as
catching the extreme warmth of the Medieval Warm Period if there was
extreme warmth then.
Because, as far as I can tell, the “hockey stick” really was a tree-ring record,
regardless of how it was labelled as “multiproxy”, this looks to me to be
a really big deal. And, a big deal that may bite your Chapter of the IPCC
Report …
Overpeck responds:
Hi Richard—this issue is one that we refer to in our key uncertainty table.
I believe Keith Briffa was one of the first to write about it, and it is an
important issue. I haven’t seen Rosanne’s paper or results myself, but I bet
Keith has. I’m cc’ing this to him to see what he thinks.
Keith Briffa responds:
We do need to say something, but as I said in an earlier message, not
without more consideration. We should not write something curt on
this—ditto the possible direct effects of carbon dioxide. In the push to do
all this other stuff, we have had to leave it—to discuss later how to include
an “uncertainty issues” bit about recent environmental mess-ups. The
D’Arrigo paper is not convincing, but we have to do some work to show
why, instead of just saying this.
Indeed! Briffa finally realizes that brief public assertions without any scientific backing
will no longer be credible.
He continues:
The divergence issue is not universal, and not unrelated to very recent
period bias arising from processing methods.
In other words, the problem is real—and its extent unknown. That “processing
methods” can completely bias their results completely undermines their stated public
confidence that “the science is settled”. Indeed, Briffa explains how little they really
know—and this is 2006, not 1986:
It is very likely not the threshold problem that D’Arrigo thinks it is. We
need money here to work on this, and losing our last application to Europe
has messed us up. For now we cannot include anything. I will work on text
for the next IPCC Report.
In other words, as of 2006, they needed funding to begin new research to even
determine how reliable any of their previous results were. Is this “settled science”?

86
March 7, 2006: email 1141737742
Steve McIntyre is trying to get the data needed to verify a paper published in Science.
Jesse Smith of Science writes to Tim Osborn:
We have just received an email from Steve McIntyre (pasted below), with a
long and very specific list of alleged deficiencies in the availability of data
by which to evaluate your recent paper … We would like to have your
confidential response to this request, keeping in mind the stated policy
of Science that “Any reasonable request for materials, methods, or data
necessary to verify the conclusions of the experiments reported must be
honored.”
Osborn replies to Smith:
Before responding to the specific data requests, we would like to say that
it is our view that we should provide sufficient data to enable all the main
elements of our analysis to be checked, but that we are not obliged to
provide the data that would enable the research reported in other papers
to be checked, even if we cite those other papers or use results reported
in those other papers. You will see how this view has determined our
response to some of the requests.
A continuation of the same cunning tactics previously employed: we are allowed to
cite results published by others; but if you want their data, that’s your problem, not
ours. Science seems satisfied:
Thank you for your clear and careful response to the requests made by
Mr. McIntyre, which we forwarded to you: it was quite satisfactory, we
believe, and will greatly help Brooks (Hanson) in crafting his reply to Mr.
McIntyre. I hope that this will be the end of this episode, but if it is not, we
will be in touch again.
The relief at Science is almost palpable!
Osborn seems to realize that the victory is only temporary:
Keith—see below. I bet it won’t be the end of the episode!

March 8, 2006: email 1141849134

Richard Alley to Jonathan Overpeck, on the growing crisis:
The big issue may be that you don’t just have to convince me now; if the
National Research Council (NRC) committee comes out as being strongly
negative on the hockey stick owing to Rosanne D’Arrigo’s talk, then the
divergence between the IPCC and the NRC will be a big deal in the future

87
 regardless. The NRC committee is accepting comments now (I don’t know
for how long)… As I noted, my observations of the NRC committee
members suggest rather strongly to me that they now have serious doubts
about tree-rings as thermometers (and I do, too … at least until someone
shows me why this divergence problem really doesn’t matter).
Overpeck responds, copying his response to many colleagues:
Hi gang—Richard is raising important issues, and Keith is going to respond
in some detail on Friday when he gets back. I am cc’ing this to a broader
group of IPCC Chapter 6 folks so that we make sure we (Chapter 6) deal
with the issues correctly. I’m hoping that Keith will cc to us all, and we’ll
go from there.
For those just in on the issue raised by Richard. There is a paper written
by Rosanne D’Arrigo that apparently casts serious doubt on the ability of
tree ring data to reconstruct the full range of past temperature change—
particularly temperatures above mid-20th century levels. Chapter 6
obviously has to deal with this more in the next draft, so Eystein and I
would like to get on top of it starting this week.
Keith or Richard—do you have a copy of this paper? Is it accepted?
Yet again, the problem is being handed to Keith Briffa, the one person who has most
doubts about the validity and uncertainty of the reconstructions.

March 11, 2006: email 1142108839

Richard Alley continues on the crisis. In his summary:
These considerations do somewhat affect the confidence that can be
attached to the best estimate of recent warmth versus that of a millennium
ago. … By demonstrating that some tree-ring series chosen for temperature
sensitivity are not fully reflecting temperature changes, the divergence
issue widens the error bars and so reduces confidence in the comparison
between recent and earlier warmth.
This is the message that Keith Briffa has been trying to get across, apparently with
greater success.

April 26, 2006: email 1146062963

Mike Mann to Tim Osborn, Scott Rutherford, Keith Briffa, and Phil Jones, regarding
Steve McIntyre’s request for data:

88
 I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition
to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Science
Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, the IPCC and everyone
else. Rest assured that I won’t ever respond to McIntyre should he ever
contact me, but I will forward you any email he sends related to this. I
assume Scott feels the same way…

May 12, 2006: email 1147435800

Mike Mann to Tim Osborn, on Steve McIntyre:
Personally, I don’t see why you should make any concessions for this
moron.

May 18, 2006: email 1147982305

Neil Roberts writes to Jonathan Overpeck:
Please excuse me for writing direct, but Keith Briffa suggested it would be
simplest. I have looked through the draft Chapter 6 of the IPCC Report
…However, bullet 4 on page 6.2, starting “global mean cooling and
warming…..” strikes me as incorrect and misleading.
Roberts outlines his objections. Overpeck replies:
Hi Neil—Thanks for your interest in providing feedback on the draft …
Since the IPCC has very strict rules about all this, I’m going to ask them
(the IPCC) to send you an official invitation to review, along with the
process—formal, but highly efficient—to follow. If you could send your
comments in that way it would be a great help. We’ve been asked to keep
everything squeaky clean, and not to get comments informally.
So, “squeaky clean” only when criticized?

June 21, 2006: email 1150923423

John Mitchell, Director of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office, to Jonathan
Overpeck, Eystein Jansen, Jean Jouzel, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn:
The issue of why we don’t show the temperature proxy data for the last few
decades (they don’t show continued warming) but assume that they are
valid for early warm periods needs to be explained.
…

89
 Is the mathematical approach robust? Are the results statistically
significant? It seems to me that in the case of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes
(the “hockey stick” paper) the answer to each question is no. It is not clear
how robust and significant the more recent approaches are.
…
the comments give the impression that the recent 50-year warming is
unprecedented over the last 500 years (seems reasonable) and elsewhere
over the last 1000 years (less clear).
So the “hockey stick” is acknowledged to be dead. Even the recent warming is only a
“reasonable” impression for the past 500 years—not surprising, because most of the
past 500 years was the Little Ice Age.

August 1, 2006: email 1154484340

Keith Briffa to Jonathan Overpeck:
The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report was, in my opinion, wrong to say
anything about the precedence (or lack thereof) of the warmth of the
individual year 1998.
The reason is that all reconstructions have very wide uncertainty ranges
bracketing individual-year estimates of part temperature. Given this,
it is hard to dismiss the possibility that individual years in the past did
exceed the measured 1998 value. These errors on the individual years are
so wide as to make any comparison with the 1998 measured value very
problematic, especially when you consider that most reconstructions
do not include it in their calibration range … and the usual estimates of
uncertainty calculated … would not provide a good estimate of the likely
error associated with it even if data did exist.
Again, Keith Briffa is reiterating the impact of uncertainties in the calculations—and
coming to the sinking conclusion that the public pronouncements are scientifically
indefensible.

January 2, 2007: email 1167752455

Ray Bradley writes to Mike Mann and others, about the embarrassing graph discovered
in the Reports of the IPCC itself:
I believe this graph in the 1995 IPCC Report originated in a (literally) grey
piece of literature that Jack Eddy used to publish called “Earth Quest”. It
was designed for, and distributed to, high school teachers. …

90
 I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I recall
getting a fax from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked me to review.
Where he got his version from, I don’t know. I think I scribbled out part of
the line and amended it in some way, but have no recollection of exactly
what I did to it. And whether he edited it further, I don’t know. But as it
was purely schematic (and appears to go through around 1950) perhaps
it’s not so bad. … In any case, the graph has no objective basis whatsoever;
it is purely a “visual guess” at what happened, like something we might
sketch on a napkin at a party for some overly persistent inquisitor… (so
make sure you don’t leave such things on the table…). What made the last
millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris Folland must have
seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC Chapter he was editing.
Mike Mann responds:
Ray, happy holidays and thanks for the (quite fascinating) background on
this. It would be good material for an … article for our website. It would
be even better if someone could get Chris on record confirming that this is
indeed the history of this graphic…
Mann seems completely unperturbed that the IPCC published a completely bogus
graph, and that there is no record of where it came from.
The saga continues below…

January 5, 2007: email 1168022320

Phil Jones to many:
I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can
definitively determine where Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it
and I’d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but
on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s.
Wonderful! Fake graphs presented in the IPCC Report—but only disclose that once
the skeptics take note of it?

January 6, 2007: email 1168124326

Stefan Rahmstorf to many, on the embarrassing IPCC Report graph:
The point is not to blame anyone at all—at least my point was to track
down the source in order to be able to show the skeptics (or in my special
case, the school authorities) that this old graph is completely superseded
and should not be used any more in teaching! And I also see your problem:

91
 what we are finding out now makes the IPCC process look somewhat
unsophisticated back in 1990, so it is a diplomatic conundrum how to be
completely truthful in reporting this, as we need to be as scientists, without
providing the skeptics undue fodder for attacking the IPCC. But maybe
we’re too concerned—the skeptics can’t really attack the IPCC easily in this
case without shooting themselves in the foot.
Rasmus Benestad:
I think that this story could possible catch on and make headlines, so I agree
that we should be careful. … The skeptics may argue that the IPCC Reports
are political after all, and this is also what it sounds like if governments
“hoisted the national flag” by having their own graphs inserted at the last
minute. However, by providing an account of the “evolution of the IPCC
report writing”, we could possibly give the story a softer landing. E.g.
how many times of review the First Report underwent as compared to
the present Report. … There are sometimes a few rotten apples in a good
batch, unfortunately.
The unmistakable message is that the only way to salvage any credibility for the IPCC
Reports of the 2000s is to reveal that the IPCC Reports of the 1990s were deeply
flawed. But they were the reports upon which the entire climate change argument was
based!

January 9, 2007: email 1168356704

Tom Wigley, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), writes to Phil Jones,
its then head, on the continuing IPCC graph scandal:
Subject: Re: That darned diagram.
I see the problems with this in terms of history, IPCC image, skeptics, etc.
I’m sure you can handle it. In doing so, you might consider (or not) some
of these points.
(1) I think Chris Folland is to blame for this. The issue is not our collective
ignorance of paleoclimatology in 1989–90, but Chris’s ignorance. The
text that was in the 1990 Report (thanks for reminding us of this, Caspar)
ameliorates the problem considerably.
(2) Nevertheless, “we” (the IPCC) could have done better even then. The
Rothlisberger data were available then—and could/should have been used.
(3) We also already knew that … Hubert Lamb’s United Kingdom record
was flawed. We published a revision of this—but never in a mainstream
journal because we did not want to offend Hubert. I don’t have the paper
to hand, but I think it is …

92
 (cites a 1981 paper, of which he himself is first author)
It could be …
(cites a 1986 paper, again with himself as first author)
The point of this paper (whichever one it is) is that it covers only the
decade-scale variation—but it shows that Hubert Lamb was out to lunch
even on these time scales. As you know, this arose from his uncritical use
of historical sources—a problem exposed in a number of CRU papers in
the 1980s, staring with Bell and Ogilvie in Climatic Change.
So part of the issue is: where did Hubert get the century time scale changes
in that diagram? The answer is, mainly from his own fertile imagination.
For this he tried to synthesize both his flawed historical record for England
(and records for Europe, equally flawed) and proxy data from many sources,
again accepted uncritically. Still, there almost certainly was a Little Ice Age
in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries (but not in Iceland—at least not
in the 17th century). Whether or not there was a significant centuries-long
Medieval Warm Event is doubtful in my view.
On another historical note, Hubert got many of his ideas from C.E.P.
Brooks—possibly Brooks’s work is what inspired Hubert to pursue his
climate interests. Of course, he went a lot further (too far) because he had
a lot more information to work with. However, it is interesting that Fig. 33
in Brooks (1928) looks a lot like the IPCC 1990/Lamb Figure—in Brooks
the record goes back further, and there is a very warm period from about
500 to 950.
In other words, even though Wigley admits that his views of historical climate are
doubtful and uncertain, he accuses his predecessor Hubert Lamb of producing
completely fabricated historical climate results. Hubert Lamb, regarded as the father
of climatology in the UK, founded the Climatic Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia, and the building they occupy is the Lamb Building.
Phil Jones replies to Wigley and Caspar Ammann:
Keep the attached to yourself. I wrote this yesterday, but still need to do a
lot more. …
So your point (3) needs to document that we knew the diagram wasn’t any
good, as well as how far back it goes. Knowing Hubert on some of his other
“breakthroughs!” it is clearly possible it goes back to Brooks!
On the post-Lamb work in the CRU, I recall talking to Graham (maybe mid-
1980s) when he was comparing recent CRU work with Lamb’s results—
agreement, etc. Did that ever see the light of day in these publications or
elsewhere? I will look. It isn’t in the chapter that Astrid and he wrote in the

93
 CRU book from 1997. I recall some very low agreement between Lamb’s
results and later results—for periods from 1100 to 1500.
This is all getting quite complex. It clearly isn’t something that should
be discussed online on our website—at least till we know all the detail
and have got the history right as best we can. A lot of this history is likely
best left buried, but I hope to summarise enough to avoid all the skeptics
wanting copies of these non-mainstream papers. Finding them in the CRU
may be difficult!
As for who put the graph in the IPCC Reports—I think I know who did
it. Chris may be ignorant of the subject, but I think all he did was use the
Department of Energy graph. This is likely bad enough.
I don’t think it is going to help getting the real culprit to admit putting it
together, so I reckon Chris is going to get the blame. I have a long email
from him—just arrived. Just read that and he seems to changing his story
from last December, but I still think he just used the diagram. Something
else happened on Friday—that I think put me onto a different track. This
is all like a mystery whodunit.
It is strange that there are no records of who wrote the relevant part of the IPCC 1990
Report and put in the graph. Never mind—Chris Folland will be blamed anyway.
This oft-cited graph from the 1991 IPCC First Assessment Report may be the result
of intuition on the part of Hubert Lamb and written historical accounts from the past
rather than solid scientific evidence, but it stands up much better today than Mann’s
Hockey Stick.

February 5, 2007: email 1170724434

Mike Mann to Curt Covey and many others, regarding Covey sending him an email
exchange with leading skeptics Professor Fred Singer and Viscount Monckton of
Benchley regarding the latest IPCC Report:
Curt, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore
cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into
an exchange with these charlatans. What on earth are you thinking? … You
are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your
statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback
from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your
depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an
email to these sorts of charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage.
Shame on you for such irresponsible behavior!
Mann is showing who is the leader.

94
March 8, 2007: email 1173420319
Piers Forster to Eystein Jansen, Ken Denman, and others:
Also please could people approve the attachment of their name to such
a letter. Non-highlighted names are people who appear to have already
given approval for their name to be used. If you are a yellow highlighted
name I think you are likely (or very likely) to sign!
If we could have a relaxed attitude and sign a letter that is still in the process
of being drafted it would save someone (me) a bunch of work at the end
collecting approvals.
Yes, much easier not having to go through the inconvenience of actually reading what
you’re signing!

April 21, 2007: email 1177158252

Doug Keenan questions a paper of Phil Jones and Wei-Chyung Wang from 1990. Phil
Jones writes to Kevin Trenberth, Mike Mann, and Ben Santer:
It is all malicious. I’ve cc’d this to Ben and Mike as well, to get any thoughts
from their experiences.
If it gets worse I will bring Susan in as well, but I’m talking to some people
at the University of East Anglia first. …
… All the language is about me not being able to send them the … data
… (as used in 1990!). I don’t have this information, as we have much more
data now (much more in Australia and China than then) and probably
more stations in western USSR … as well.
As for the other request, I don’t have the information on the sources of all
the sites used in the …database. We are adding in new data sets regularly
(all of New Zealand from Jim Renwick recently), but we don’t keep a source
code for each station. Almost all sites have multiple sources and only a
few sites have single sources. I know things roughly by country and could
reconstruct it, but it would take a while.
The Global Historical Climatology Network and the National Center for
Atmospheric Research don’t have source codes either. It does all come
from the National Meteorological Services—well mostly, but some from
scientists.
… the Keenan letter knocked me back a bit. I seem to be the marked man
now!

95
In other words, the raw data was never properly documented at all, and in any case is
now gone.
Mike Mann:
This is all too predictable. This crowd of charlatans is always looking for
one thing they can harp on, where people with little knowledge of the facts
might be able to be convinced that there is a controversy. They can’t take
on the whole of the science, so they look for one little thing they can say is
wrong, and thus generalize that the science is entirely compromised.
That is how science is done: claims are analysed, one by one.
So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like
a legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
feeding the fire. The best thing to do is to ignore them completely. They
no longer have their friends in power here in the United States, and the
media has become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians,
at least in the United States—the Wall Street Journal editorial page is about
the only place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words,
for contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable
for development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may
not be bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
tougher in the States).
In other words, forget about defending the science—use legal bullying tactics instead.
Kevin Trenberth:
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to
undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don’t think you can
ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try
to somehow label these guys as lazy and incompetent and unable to do
the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database. Indeed
technology and data handling capabilities have evolved and not everything
was saved. So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their
motives and throw in some counter-rhetoric. Labelling them as lazy with
nothing better to do seems like a good thing to do.
In other words, only the people who constructed the adjusted data sets should have
the right to see them; everyone else should obtain their own data!
How about “I tried to get some data from McIntyre from his 1990 paper,
but I was unable because he doesn’t have such a paper because he has not
done any constructive work!”

96
 There is no basis for retracting a paper given in Keenan’s message. One
may have to offer a correction that a particular sentence was not correct if
it claimed something that indeed was not so. But some old instrumental
data are like paleoclimatology data, and can only be used with caution
as information about the data does not exist. It doesn’t mean they are
worthless and cannot be used. Offering to make a correction to a few
words in a paper in a trivial manner will undermine his case.

Again, the old data was so poorly documented that no information about what it
refers to survives.

April 25, 2007: email 1177534709

Phil Jones to Ben Santer, regarding the data that Keenan wishes to see:

Possibly I’ll get the raw data from the Global Historical Climatology
Network and do some work to replace our adjusted data with these, then
make the Raw data (i.e. as transmitted by the National Meteorological
Services). This will annoy them more, so may inflame the situation.

Again, Jones does not have the raw data, only his adjusted data, and is looking for
ways of reconstructing the raw data from other sources.

Ben Santer:

I looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. I’d really like to
talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.

June 19, 2007: email 1177890796

Keith Briffa writes to Mike Mann, about the latest IPCC Report:

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were
not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression
of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and
uncertainties.

Such is Mann’s overbearing and intolerant demeanour, that Briffa feels the need to
apologize for actually examining the uncertainties in a scientific manner!

June 19, 2007: email 1182255717

Wei-Chyung Wang to Doug Keenan, regarding the missing data:

97
 Ms. Zeng told me when I was in Beijing in April 2007 that she no longer
has … access to this data because it has been a long time (since 1990) and
also because the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy
of Sciences has moved office. But if you are interested, you can make an
inquiry to the China Meteorological Administration …

More run-around—more missing data.

Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang and Tom Karl:

1. I think I’ve managed to persuade the University of East Anglia to

ignore all further Freedom Of Information Act requests if the people have
anything to do with Climate Audit.

2. I had an email from David Jones of the Bureau of Meteorology Research

Centre, Melbourne, Australia. He said they are ignoring anybody who has
dealings with Climate Audit, as there are threads on it about Australian
sites.

Freedom of Information evasion has begun in earnest, particularly as it pertains to

Doug Keenan and Steve McIntyre.

June 20, 2007: email 1182342470

Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang and Tom Karl:

I won’t be replying to either of the emails below from Doug Keenan and
Steve McIntyre, nor to any of the accusations on the Climate Audit website.

I’ve sent them on to someone here at the University of East Anglia to see if
we should be discussing anything with our legal staff.

The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me, and somehow split up
the original author team.

I do now wish I’d never sent them the data after their Freedom Of
Information Act request!

Phil Jones to Tom Peterson:

There are a few interesting comments on the Climate Audit web site. One
says it is up to me to prove the paper from 1990 was correct, not for Keenan
to prove we’re wrong. Interesting logic.

No, it’s scientific integrity.

98
June 20, 2007: email 1182346299
Kevin Trenberth to Phil Jones:
It is nasty. It is also very inappropriate. Even were some problems to
emerge over time, those should be addressed in a new paper by these guys.
Unfortunately all they do is criticise.
Oh, no—not criticism!

June 20, 2007: email 1182361058

Eugene Wahl writes to Phil Jones, unable to bear the pressure of independent scrutiny:
I was wondering if there is any way we as the scientific community can
seek some kind of “cease and desist” action with these people. They
are making all kinds of claims, all over the community, and we act in
relatively disempowered ways. Note that the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research did send the response letter to the presidents of
the two academic institutions with which McIntyre and McKitrick are
associated, although this seems to have had no impact. Seeking the help of
the attorneys you speak about would be useful, I should think. I know that
Mike has said he looked into slander action with the attorneys with whom
he spoke, but they said it is hard to do since Mike is, in effect, a “public”
person—and to do so would take a lot of his time (assuming that the legal
time could somehow be supported financially). If I might ask, if you do get
legal advice, could you inquire into the possibility of acting proactively in
response via the British system? Maybe the “public” person situation does
not hold there, or less so. I only ask you to consider this question on my
part; obviously, please do what you deem best for your situation.

August 29, 2007: email 1188412866

Benny Peiser, guest editor of Energy and Environment, sends a copy of the Keenan
paper alleging the scientific fraud of Wei-Chyung Wang to Phil Jones for review. Jones
forwards it to Kevin Trenberth and Mike Mann:
The Appendix of this attachment has gone to the State University of New
York at Albany and is being dealt with by them. Not sure when, but Wei-
Chyung Wang has nothing to worry about.

August 30, 2007: email 1188478901

Phil Jones to Kevin Trenberth and Mike Mann:

99
 I’ve been in touch with Wei-Chyung Wang, who’s in China at the moment.
He forwarded the “paper!” to the people dealing with Keenan’s allegations
at the State University of New York. He got a reply to say that Keenan has
now violated the confidentiality agreement related to the allegation. So, it
isn’t right to respond whilst this is ongoing.
Confidentiality is obviously something that only the “contrarians” must abide by.
Mike Mann replies, copying in Kevin Trenberth:
I did take the liberty of discussing this with Gavin, who can of course be
trusted to maintain the confidentiality of this. We’re in agreement that
Keenan has wandered his way into dangerous territory here, and that in
its current form this is clearly libellous; there is not even a pretense that
he is only investigating the evidence. Furthermore, while many of us fall
under the category of “limited public figures” and therefore the threshold
for proving libel is quite high, this is not the case for Wei-Chyung. He
is not a public figure. I believe they have made a major miscalculation
here in treating him as if he is. In the United Kingdom, where Energy and
Environment is published, the threshold is even lower than it is in the
United States for proving libel. We both think he should seek legal advice
on this, as soon as possible.
With respect to Peiser’s guest editing of Energy and Environment and your
review, following up on Kevin’s suggestions, we think there are two key
points. First, if there are factual errors (other than the fraud allegation)
it is very important that you point them out now. If not, Keenan could
later allege that he made the claims in good faith, as he provided you an
opportunity to respond and you did not. Secondly, we think you need to
also focus on the legal implications. In particular, you should mention that
the publisher of a libel is also liable for damages—that might make Sonja
Boehmer-Christiansen be a little wary. Of course, if it does get published,
maybe the resulting settlement would shut down Energy and Environment
and Benny and Sonja all together! We can only hope, anyway. So maybe in
an odd way it’s actually win-win for us, not them. Lets see how this plays
out…
Their proposed legal strategy now encompasses the possibility of shutting down
Energy and Environment.

August 30, 2007: email 1188508827

Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang and Tom Karl:
I just received this. I won’t be responding.

100
 Knowing this journal, there is no point, not even if I said I ought to review
the paper. Peiser is a well-known skeptic in the UK. Not sure what to do.
I guess you (Wei-Chyung Wang) should forward this to whoever needs to
see it at Albany.

If you think I should respond then I can. I will forward this to someone
here, but mainly for their file.

I did say the quote on page 3 about two to three years ago. I am still not
releasing the Climatic Research Unit … data collected over … the last 25
years.

Wei-Chyung Wang:

I have forwarded the file to the Vice-President of Research and she wrote
back to me that Keenan has violated the confidentiality agreement, as I
told her in the very beginning. In any case, I am letting the university …
handle this. Send me whatever you have and I will forward it to the State
University of New York at Albany. Keenan does not follow … any rules at
all; reasoning with him is useless, but this will come back to badly hurt
him.

The Editor of Energy and Environment writes to Phil Jones, clarifying Jones’s query
about its review:

The paper has been sent to three reviewers. Of course I will take your
comments and assessment into consideration. Indeed, if the claims are
unsubstantiated, I would certainly reject the paper.

Phil Jones to Wei-Chyung Wang:

I won’t do anything then until the State University of New York (SUNY)
process has run its course. Can you clarify what you mean by violated
confidentiality? I presume you mean that Keenan agreed to do nothing
on the issue until the SUNY process has run its course. I presume this
will conclude sometime this autumn. Keep me informed of when the final
decision might be, as after this we ought to do something about the paper
in Energy and Environment. I checked with their guest editor and got
this amazing reply! See above. So, if we didn’t already think this was the
worst journal in the world, now we know for certain it is, and have clear
information from them to prove it.

When I mean doing something, I don’t mean sending anything to Energy

and Environment, as that will be useless. Our blog site is a possibility, but
there are other avenues.

101
Wang:

The confidentiality agreement means that Keenan needs to keep the

“inquiry” confidential during the process of the SUNY Albany “inquiry”.
Jones:
1. Libel is quite easy to prove in the United Kingdom as you’re not a public
figure. Perhaps when you’re back you ought to consider taking some legal
advice from the SUNY. Assuming the paper is published, that is.
2. More important. I think I should send a short email to the editor Peiser
and inform him that Keenan has broken his agreement with the SUNY
over this issue. If I don’t, they could say I had the chance and didn’t. Can
you check with the SUNY whether the folks there think I should?
Wang:
We should be thinking, after the whole ordeal is over, to take legal (or
other) actions against Keenan. This is a time I regret not been a rich person,
otherwise I could throw a million dollar lawsuit against him.
Let me know what you want to do. I have also asked the SUNY at Albany’s
opinion about what you should do within the SUNY framework. But be
careful that you do not know much about the SUNY action.
Instead of intimidatory law suits, did they ever consider defending the science?

August 31, 2007: email 1188557698

Phil Jones to Tom Wigley:
Tom, Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues.
I have been in touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. I just agreed with him that
I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan has gone
to the State University of New York (SUNY). Keenan’s about to be told
by SUNY that submitting this has violated a confidentiality agreement he
entered into with SUNY when he sent the complaint. Wei-Chyung Wang
has nothing to worry about, but it is still unsettling!
All related to a paper in Nature from 1990! Keenan ought to look at the
temperature data (which he has) rather than going on and on about site
moves. See the end of this email and the response about Energy and
Environment and the three reviewers. Amazing! We all knew the journal
was awful.

102
 On something completely different—just agreed to review another crappy
paper by Chappell and Agnew on Sahel Rainfall. Chappell is out of a job—
and still he tries to write papers saying the Sahel drought might not have
happened! Both are just time wasters—but the review is necessary to do
unfortunately.
Tom Wigley’s remarkable reply:
It seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers
that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (Wei-
Chyung Wang at the very least) must have known at the time that they
were incorrect.
Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.
Wigley, again, realizes that they have all missed the point: Keenan’s allegations are
factually based and are very damaging.

September 11, 2007: email 1189515774

Phil Jones to Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt:
Don’t pass this on; it’s just for interest. It seems as though Energy and
Environment will likely publish this paper. …
… The fraud allegation against you, Mike, is only in passing!
Wei-Chyung is in Vienna. Have forwarded this to him to pass onto the
State University of New York. I wish they would conclude their assessment
of malpractice.
…
PS to Gavin—been following (sporadically) the Climate Audit stuff about
the Goddard Institute for Space Studies data and release of the computer
programs, etc., by Jim Hansen. I may take some of the pressure off you
soon, by releasing a list of the stations we use—just a list, no programs and
no data. I have agreed to do this under the Freedom Of Information Act
here in the United Kingdom.
Again, Jones is doing the bare minimum possible.
Mike Mann:
It may be difficult for me to sue them over a footnote, and in fact he is
very careful only to intimate accusations against me in a response to
your comments. Note that he does not do so in the paper. I’m sure they

103
 know that I would sue them for that, and that I have a top lawyer already
representing me.
Wei Chyung needs to sue them, or at the least threaten a lawsuit. If he
doesn’t, this will set a dangerous new precedent. I could put him in touch
with a leading attorney who would do this free of charge. Of course, this
has to be done quickly. The threat of a lawsuit alone may prevent them from
publishing this paper, so time is of the essence. Please feel free to mention
this directly to Wei Chyung, in particular that I think he needs to pursue
a legal course here … independent of whatever his university is doing. He
cannot wait for Stony Brook to complete its internal investigations! If he
does so, it will be too late to stop this.

September 11, 2007: email 1189536059

Phil Jones to Jacquie Burgess and Michael McGarvie:

I’ve been in discussion with Michael over the past several months about a
number of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for Climatic Research
Unit data. …

Michael McGarvie:

I would like to suggest that we ask Dave Palmer to comment on the events
on the Freedom Of Information Act request—I don’t think I fully agree
with the story presented here. Do you agree?

I also think we should alert the Press Office in due course.

Jacquie Burgess:

I will keep your email and hope we don’t have to mobilise. This is very
close to harassment, isn’t it?

December 4, 2007: email 1196872660

Despite the growing controversy, Mike Mann feels the need to find an award for his
mate, Phil Jones. This episode—and its hilarious aftermath—offers amazing insights
into the characters of these two leading conspirators; but it also demonstrates the folly
of relying on fancy-sounding awards and memberships to denigrate the criticisms of
all those who are not “in the club”. First, the menu:

By the way, I am still looking into nominating you for an American

Geophysical Union award; I’ve been told that the Ewing medal wouldn’t

104
 be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options you’d like
me to investigate…

Jones selects his own award:

As for the American Geophysical Union—just getting one of their
Fellowships would be fine. I take it you’ve seen the attached in Energy and
Environment.
Mann:
I will look into the American Geophysical Union Fellowship situation
as soon as possible. I don’t read Energy and Environment; it gives me
indigestion—I don’t even consider it peer-reviewed science, and in my
view we should treat it that way, i.e., don’t cite anything appearing in it,
and if journalists ask us about a paper, simply explain that it’s not peer-
reviewed science, and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor, has even
admitted to an anti-Kyoto agenda!
Mann has his own definition of what peer-review is!
I do hope that Wei-Chyung pursues legal action here.

January 10, 2008: email 1199999668

Phil Jones to Ben Santer:
Tim has let me into part of the secret. Glenn said the paper had two
reviews—one positive; the other said it wasn’t great, but would leave it up
to the editor’s discretion. This is why Glenn knows he made the wrong
choice.
The problem! The person who said they would leave it to the editor’s
discretion is on your email list! I don’t know who it is—Tim does—maybe
they have told you? I don’t want to put pressure on Tim. He doesn’t know
I’m sending this. The second reviewer isn’t me, by the way—nor Tim! Tim
said it was someone who hasn’t contributed to the discussion—which does
narrow the possibilities down!
This is a deplorable corruption of the peer-review system; “peer group pressure” is a
more accurate term.

March 26, 2008: email 1206549942

Mike Mann writes to Chris Folland, Phil Jones, and Tom Karl:

105
 Just wanted to give you a heads-up (warning) on something. Have you
seen this?
(link to graphic on the Met(eorological) Office site)
Apparently the contrarians are having a field day with this graph. My
understanding that it is based on using only January and February 2008
and padding (filling the remaining values) with that final value.
Surely this can’t be?? Is (skeptic) Fred Singer now running the United
Kingdom Met(eorological)Office website?
I would appreciate any info you can provide.
David Parker of the United Kingdom Met(eorological) Office responds, including
John Kennedy on the cc list:
Yes, it was based on only January and February 2008 and padding with
that final value, but John Kennedy has changed / shortly will change this
misleading plot!
This episode will be continued shortly.

March 27, 2008: email 1206628118

We are now at the point where Climategate starts to get slightly self-referential: the
noose is tightening, and the main characters begin to worry about past actions,
statements, and emails.
In this episode, Jonathan Overpeck has been sent an email about a quote attributed to
him “getting rid” of the Medieval Warm Period. Overpeck writes to his colleagues for
advice. Phil Jones responds, copying in Mike Mann, and Susan Solomon:
The person who sent you this is likely far worse. This is David Holland.
He is a United Kingdom citizen who send countless letters to his Member
of Parliament in the United Kingdom, writes in Energy and Environment
about the biased IPCC, and has also been hassling John Mitchell about
his role as Review Editor for Chapter 6 of the IPCC Report. You might
want to talk to John about how he’s responding. Holland has been making
requests under our Freedom Of Information Act about the letters Review
Editors sent when signing off. I’m sure Susan is aware of this. He’s also
made requests for similar letters regarding Working Group 2, and maybe
Working Group 3. Keith has been in contact with John about this.
It is good to see Jones hard at work gathering intelligence! But it is a pity he didn’t take
as much effort documenting his data as he did his opponents.

106
April 2, 2008: email 1207158227
Chris Folland of the UK Met(eorological) Office writes to Mike Mann, Phil Jones,
Tom Karl, and Richard Reynolds, regarding the incorrect temperature graph on the
Met(eorological) Office website:
First, thanks very much, Mike, for noticing this and preventing greater
problems. The error arose from a pre-existing hidden software bug that
the person updating the data had not realised was there. The software is a
mixture of languages which makes it less than transparent. The bug is now
fixed on all the smoothed graphs. It was made worse because the last point
was not an average of several preceding years as it should have been but
was just January 2008. So many apologies for any excitement this may have
created in the hearts of the more ardent skeptics. Some are much on the
warpath at present over the lack of recent global warming, fired in some
cases by visions of a new solar Dalton Minimum.
It is remarkable that, as recently as 2008, the Met(eorological) Office’s quality
management processes are in the same parlous state as that of the researchers—their
computer programs a mess of different languages, full of bugs and hacks.

May 9, 2008: email 1210341221

Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, and Caspar Ammann:
A couple of things—don’t pass on either.
…
2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this
is the person who is putting in Freedom Of Information requests for all the
emails that Keith and Tim have written and received regarding Chapter 6
of the IPCC Report. We think we’ve found a way around this.
Intelligence work again—and yet something else to “hide behind”!
But wait—am I being too melodramatic? Let’s see how Jones ends his email:
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
No, Jones understands precisely what he is doing.

May 21, 2008: email 1211462932

Mike Mann continues in his quest to control all publications that relate to climate
science. He writes to Phil Jones:

107
 Gavin and I have been discussing: we think it will be important for us to do
something on the Thompson and co-workers paper as soon as it appears,
since it’s likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian
slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance
copy? We promise to fully respect Nature’s embargo (i.e., we wouldn’t post
any article until the paper goes public), and we don’t expect to in any way
be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure
that the right message is emphasized.
Thanks in advance for any help!

May 27, 2008: email 1211911286

David Douglass, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, makes a reasonable
request to Ben Santer:
In a recent paper by Peter Thorne in Nature Geoscience he references a
paper that you and he (and others) have written.
I cannot understand some parts of the Thorne paper without reading the
Santer and Thorne reference.
Would you please send me a copy?
Santer’s reply introduces his astounding arrogance and pettiness:
Dr. Douglass:
I assume that you are referring to the Santer and co-workers paper which
has been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology (IJoc).
Despite your claims to the contrary, the Santer and co-workers IJoC paper
is not essential reading material in order to understand the arguments
advanced by Peter Thorne (in his “News and Views” piece on the Allen
and Sherwood Nature Geosciences article).
I note that you did not have the professional courtesy to provide me with
any advance information about your 2007 IJoC paper, which was basically
a commentary on previously-published work by myself and my colleagues.
Neither I nor any of the authors of those previously-published works (the
2005 Santer and co-workers Science paper and the 2006 Karl and co-
workers Climate Change Science Program Report) had the opportunity to
review your 2007 IJoC paper prior to its publication—presumably because
you specifically requested that we should be excluded from consideration
as possible reviewers.
I see no conceivable reason why I should now send you an advance copy
of my IJoC paper. Collegiality is not a one-way street, Professor Douglass.

108
May 27, 2008: email 1211924186
Tim Osborn writes to Casper Ammann, copying in Keith Briffa and Phil Jones:
Our university has received a request, under the United Kingdom Freedom
of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or
other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters
related to the IPCC assessment process.
We are not sure what our university’s response will be, nor have we even
checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or
that we retained any that you may have sent.
However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In
particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that
you sent to us as confidential.
Sorry to bother you with this.
Osborn’s tactics in evading the Freedom of Information request are multi-layered.
Firstly, he is hoping that the University of East Anglia will block the request outright.
Secondly, he is giving an invitation to Ammann to declare that any emails that he
did send did not relate to the IPCC process. Thirdly, he is hopeful that any emails
not covered by such a denial were not “retained” (demonstrating his naivety with
regard to email archiving processes). Fourthly, he is inviting Ammann to declare any
emails that slip through the first three filters to be “confidential”, which he is obviously
hoping will be a sufficient excuse to prevent them from being released.
Ammann responds:
Oh man! Will this crap ever end?
Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance
digging through emails. I don’t recall from the top of my head any specifics
about IPCC.
I’m also sorry that you guys have to go through this bullshit.
We will come to Osborn’s response to this email shortly.

May 27, 2008: email 1212009215

Related to the above email exchange is the following email from the University of East
Anglia’s Dave Palmer (a librarian allocated to dealing with Freedom of Information
requests) to Phil Jones, Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, and Michael McGarvie and which
clearly precedes Osborn’s email to Ammann:

109
 Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland regarding
his Freedom of Information request. Could you provide input as to his
additional questions 1, and 2, and check with Mr. Ammann in question 3
as to whether he believes his correspondence with us to be confidential?
Palmer now raises what the others would see as a potential loophole:
Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform the
requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and ask him to
limit it …
(lists guidelines)
In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a way as
to bring it within the appropriate limit …
In other words, it is not a loophole: they must do everything in their power to assist
Holland to adjust his request to fall within the allowable limits.
Palmer clearly understands the gravity of the situation:
I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible “by the book” in this
instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with the statutory
potential to end up with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Tim Osborn begins the process of “divide and conquer”:
These follow-up questions appear directed more towards Keith than to me.
But Keith may be unavailable for a few days due to family illness, so I’ll
attempt a brief response in case Keith doesn’t get a chance to.
Items (1) and (2) concern requests that were made by the IPCC Technical
Support Unit (hosted by the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research in the United States) and any responses would have been sent
direct to the IPCC Technical Support Unit, to the email address specified
in the quote included in item (2). These requests are, therefore, irrelevant
to the University of East Anglia.
So they can handball this one to the IPCC. (We will see shortly why this is a cunning
tactic.)
Item (3): we’ll send the same enquiry to Ammann as we sent to our other
colleagues, and let you know his response.
This prompted the email discussed above.
Item (3) also asks for emails from “the journal Climatic Change that discuss
any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process”. I can confirm that
I have not received any such emails or other documents. I expect that a

110
 similar answer will hold for Keith, since I cannot imagine that the editor of
a journal would be contacting us about the IPCC process.
Osborn here believes that simply asserting that none of the communications relate to
the IPCC assessment process will suffice—ignoring completely the reality that these
very scientists refer to the IPCC as “us”, namely, that drawing an arbitrary distinction
between their climate work and that of the IPCC is meaningless.
Phil Jones, the master of finding loopholes to hide behind, enters the fray:
Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to the
University of East Anglia, Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) that
Keith didn’t get any additional comments in the drafts other than those
supplied by the IPCC. On (2), Keith should say that he didn’t get any
papers through the IPCC process either. I was doing a different chapter
from Keith and I didn’t get any. What we did get were papers sent to us
directly—so not through the IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC
Chapters.
Jones is trying to argue that when they received papers, with explicit requests that
the papers be referred to in the IPCC Report, then this was not part of the “IPCC
process”! This is ludicrous.
Jones now laments the fact that Holland does not understand how the “old boys’ club”
works:
If only Holland knew how the process really worked! Every faculty member
in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
and all the post-doctoral research fellows and most PhD students do, but
seemingly not Holland.
So Jones is confessing to having effectively indoctrinated the entire faculty!
He returns to the task at hand, telling everyone what they should say, even though he
does not know whether it is correct or not, rather than actually asking anyone what
the truth is:
So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to the IPCC, but
Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC
comments.
Jones now proceeds to concoct answers on behalf of others:
As for (3), Tim has asked Caspar Ammann, but Caspar is one of the worst
responders to emails known. I doubt that either he emailed Keith or Keith
emailed him related to the IPCC.
Ironically, we have already seen, above, that Ammann responded immediately!

111
Jones now tries to infer a motive for the requests:
I think this will be quite easy to respond to once Keith is back. From
looking at these questions and the Climate Audit web site, this all relates to
two papers in the journal Climatic Change. I know how Keith and Tim got
access to these papers and it was nothing to do with the IPCC.
So Jones is admitting that Briffa and Osborn had premature access to the papers in
question, but that their method of doing so could not be explicitly traced to the IPCC
process. A loophole!

May 27, 2008: email 1212009927

Ben Santer’s arrogant and abusive response to David Douglass’s request for a paper
that he referenced is coming back to bite him. He writes to many:
Dear folks,
I just wanted to alert you to an issue that has arisen in the last few days.
As you probably know, a paper by Robert Allen and Steve Sherwood
was published last week in Nature Geoscience. Peter Thorne was asked
to write a “News and Views” piece on the Allen and Sherwood paper.
Peter’s commentary on Allen and Sherwood briefly referenced our joint
International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Peter discussed this with
me about a month ago, and I saw no problem with including a reference to
our IJoC paper. The reference in Peter’s “News and Views” contribution is
very general, and gives absolutely no information on the substance of our
IJoC paper.
But it was cited as an authoritative reference nevertheless.
At the time Peter I discussed this issue, I had high hopes that our IJoC
manuscript would now be very close to publication. I saw no reason
why publication of Peter’s “News and Views” piece should cause us any
concern. Now, however, it is obvious that David Douglass has read the
“News and Views” piece and wants a copy of our IJoC paper in advance of
its publication—in fact, before a final editorial decision on the paper has
been reached. Dr. Douglass has written to me and to Peter, requesting a
copy of our IJoC paper. In his letter to Peter, Dr. Douglass has claimed that
failure to provide him (Douglass) with a copy of our IJoC paper would
contravene the ethics policies of the journal Nature.
Rightly so: if one cites an unpublished paper, then a “preprint” (pre-publication
draft) should always be provided on request. This is an absolutely standard procedure
throughout science.

112
 As you can see from my reply to Dr. Douglass, I feel strongly that we should
not give him an advance copy of our paper. However, I think we should
resubmit our revised manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible.
This is remarkable: the paper is not even in the publication process! It was returned to the
authors for revision. In other words, it was not accepted for publication at the time it was
cited.
With proper caveats, such a premature citation is acceptable. However, under no
circumstances would it be acceptable to then refuse to supply a preprint of the paper on
request.
The sooner we receive a final editorial decision on our paper, the less likely that
it is that Dr. Douglass will be able to cause problems. With your permission,
therefore, I’d like to resubmit our revised manuscript by no later than close
of business tomorrow. I’ve incorporated most of the suggested changes I’ve
received from you in the past few days. My personal feeling is that we’ve
now reached the point of diminishing returns, and that it’s more important
to get the manuscript resubmitted than to engage in further iterations about
relatively minor details. I will circulate a final version of the revised paper
and the response to the reviewers later this evening. Please let me know if
resubmission by Close Of Business tomorrow is not acceptable to you.
Santer is so desperate to hide the fact that the paper in question is not in publication
that he wants to railroad his co-authors into resubmitting it immediately—before they
have completed the process of properly correcting it.
Steven Sherwood responds:
I wouldn’t feel too threatened by the likes of Douglass. This paper will
likely be accepted as is upon resubmission, given the reviews, so why not
just send him a copy too once it is ready and final.
Tom Wigley disagrees:
Sorry, but I agree with quick submission, but not with giving anything to
Douglass until the paper appears in print.
Phil Jones:
This is definitely the right response—so I agree with Tom. I have been known
to disagree with him, and he’s not always right. Submit as soon as possible!!
One would gather, from these recommendations, that the co-authors’ confidence in
their paper is rock-solid; that the science is rock-solid; that the paper was already
ready to publish, aside perhaps from some minor cosmetic repairs. Right?
Read on.

113
May 28, 2008: email 1212026314
Ben Santer now drops a bombshell, to a large number of recipients:
Dear folks,
I just wanted to let you know that I did not submit our paper to IJoC.
After some discussions that I’ve had with Tom Wigley and Peter Thorne,
I applied our mathematical tests … The results are shown in the attached
graph.
The rock-solid paper was not submitted? Why not?
The worrying thing about the appended Figure is the behavior of one of the
tests. This is the test which we thought Reviewers 1 and 2 were advocating.
As you can see, the test produces unexpected results. We do not wish to be
accused by Douglass and co-workers of devising a test that is unfair.
So the results are flawed.
So the question is, did we misinterpret the intentions of the Reviewers?
Or the real questions are: Did the Reviewers understand the mathematics and statistics
better than the authors? Did the authors even understand what was being told to
them? Did they even listen?
I will try to clarify this point tomorrow with Francis Zwiers (our Reviewer
2).
…
The bottom line here is that we need to clarify with Francis the exact form
of the test he was requesting.
This lack of comprehension is astounding.
I’m sorry about the delay in submission of our manuscript, but this is an
important point, and I’d like to understand it fully. I’m still hopeful that
we’ll be able to submit the paper in the next few days. Many thanks to Tom
and Peter for persuading me to pay attention to this issue. It often took a
lot of persuasion…
Even Santer realizes that they will not be able to “bulldoze through” a paper that is
patently wrong.

May 29, 2008: email 1212063122

Phil Jones sends to Mike Mann the email that will give him sleepless nights for years
to come.

114
 Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith regarding the
latest IPCC report? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment—
minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new
email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
So the primary co-conspirators in the IPCC are Phil Jones, Mike Mann, Keith Briffa,
Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann.
Mike Mann’s response is likewise very damaging to his reputation.
I’ll contact Gene about this as soon as possible.

May 29, 2008: email 1212067640

Peter Thorne of the Met(eorological) Office writes about the problematic International
Journal of Climatology paper:
We still need to be aware that this ignores two sources of uncertainty that
will exist in the real world that are not included …
…
One approach, that I would advocate here because I’m lazy / because it’s
more intuitive* (* = delete as appropriate) is that we can (mathematical
suggestion). However, the alternative approach would be to take the range
of data set estimates, make the necessary poor-man’s assumption that this
is (one of two mathematical possibilities) depending upon how far you
think they span the range of possible answers, and then incorporate this as
an extra part of the equation. …
Anyway, this is just a methodological quirk that logically follows if we are
worried about ensuring universal applicability of the approach, which with
the increasingly frequent use of the data for these types of applications is
something we maybe should be considering. I don’t expect us to spend
very much time, if any, on this issue as I agree that key is submitting the
paper as soon as possible.
Even though these scientists are being rapidly educated in the correct way to use
mathematics and statistics to analyse their results, their most urgent goal is to get
the cited paper back into the publication process—regardless of whether or not it is
correct.

115
May 30, 2008: email 1212156886
Despite Phil Jones’s assertion above that he does not respond to emails, Caspar
Ammann writes to Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, and Phil Jones, regarding Osborn’s
earlier hope that Ammann would consider his emails to be “confidential”:
In response to your inquiry about my take on the confidentiality of my
email communications with you, Keith or Phil, I have to say that the intent
of these emails is to reply or communicate with the individuals on the
distribution list, and they are not intended for general “publication”. If
I would consider my texts to potentially get wider dissemination then I
would probably have written them in a different style. Having said that, as
far as I can remember (and I haven’t checked in the records, if they even
still exist) I have never written an explicit statement on these messages that
would label them strictly confidential.
Not sure if this is of any help, but it seems to me that it reflects our standard
way of interaction in the scientific community.
Ammann’s answers are exactly what one would expect any professional scientist to
give, with regard to their workplace emails: they are written in the style of informal
communication, rather than for publication, but there is nothing to hide.

May 30, 2008: email 1212166714

Tim Osborn replies to Caspar Ammann’s previous response:
Hi again Caspar,
I don’t think it is necessary for you to dig through any emails you may have
sent us to determine your answer.
Our question is a more general one, which is whether you generally
consider emails that you sent us to have been sent in confidence. If you do,
then we will use this as a reason to decline the Freedom Of Information
request.
Osborn is frustrated that Ammann is handling his first request honestly, promising to
check his emails for anything that may be confidential. Osborn here makes explicit to
Ammann that this is not what he wants, but rather a blanket statement that he can use
as a loophole to hide behind.

June 2, 2008: email 1212435868

Mike Mann writes to Phil Jones, reporting his progress in nominating Jones for the
award that Jones himself selected:

116
 Hi Phil,
This is coming along nicely. I’ve got five very strong supporting letter
writers lined up to support your American Geophysical Union Fellowship
nomination (confidentially: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, Jean Jouzel, and Lonnie
Thompson have all agreed; I’m waiting to hear back from one more
individual; the maximum is six letters, including mine as nominator).
Meanwhile, if you can pass along the following information that is needed
for the nomination package, that would be very helpful. Thanks in advance!

June 4, 2008: email 1212587222

Steve McIntyre writes to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East
Anglia:
Dear Sir, Can you please send me a copy of the Farmer and co-workers
1989 paper, cited in Folland and Parker’s paper of 1995, which, in turn, is
cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks, Steve McIntyre
Phil Jones forwards the request to Mike Mann, and Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard
Institute for Space Studies:
This email came to the CRU last night.
(quotes above email)
The CRU has just the one copy of this paper! We’ve just got a new scanner
for a project, so someone here is going to try this out—and scan the roughly
150 pages. I’m doing this as this is one of the project reports that I wished
I’d written up.
Jones’s admission is astounding: we learn that, as of June 2008, the CRU had no
comprehensive electronic archive of its own reports; and he himself takes the blame
for failing to write up a number of required project reports.
Mike Mann replies:
It seems to me that the CRU should charge him a fee for the service.
He shouldn’t be under the assumption that he has the right to demand
that reports be scanned in for him on a whim. The CRU should require
reasonable monetary compensation for the labor, effort (and postage!).
Mann’s stance is astonishing: McIntyre should pay for the labour of scanning in a
report that should have been electronically archived decades earlier?
He continues:

117
 If this were a colleague acting in good faith, I’d say do it at no cost. But of,
course, he’s not. He’s not interested in the truth here; he’s just looking for
another way to try to undermine confidence in our science.
So the real issue is not the labour involved, but the fact that this is yet another loophole
to hide behind.
I guess you’re going to get your money’s worth out of your scanner.
That Mann is unsurprised that the CRU is only now catching up with twenty-year-old
technology is revealing.

June 8, 2008: email 1212924720

Mike Mann writes to Phil Jones on the issue most dear to his heart:
Hi Phil,
I’m continuing to work on your nomination package to be awarded a
Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union (here in my hotel room
in Trieste—the weather isn’t any good!). If it’s possible for a case to be too
strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as supporting
letter writer, along with Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (Four of the
five are already American Geophysical Union Fellows, which I’m told is
important! Surprisingly, Ben is not yet, nor am I. But David Thompson is
(quite young for one of these). I’m guessing that Mike Wallace and Susan
Solomon might have had something to do with that (wink).
Jones should take the hint: Mann will be wanting the favour to be paid back!
Anyway, I wanted to check with you on two things:
1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value
of “N”, where “N” is the number of papers an individual authored or
co-authored that have more than N citations. A level of N = 40 (i.e., an
individual has published at least 40 papers that have each been cited at
least 40 times) is supposedly an important threshold for admission in
the United States National Academy of Sciences. I’m guessing your N is
significantly greater than that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible.
Would you mind figuring out that number and sending it to me—I think
it would be useful in really sealing the case.
Mann is not wrong: such dubious measures of “worth” really are used for such
purposes. Of course, in the corrupted field of climate science, such citations are not
just of dubious value, but completely meaningless, as Mann and his colleagues had
complete control over what was published (and hence cited) and what was not, and
repeatedly cited each other’s papers.

118
 2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your two-page
bibliography? In my nomination letter, I’m trying to underscore the diverse
areas where you’ve made major contributions … For example, your early
Nature papers with Wigley… in 1980 and 1981 seem to be among the
earliest efforts to try to do this (though I don’t have copies of the papers,
so can’t read them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me.
Mann wants to highlight “contributions” of Jones that he himself has never read!
Or is that an incorrect interpretation of his words?
Also, if you happen to have copies of the two early Wigley papers, or even
just the text for the Abstracts, it would be great to have a little more detail
about those papers so I can appropriately work them into the narrative of
my letter.
No, it’s not: he has no idea what is in the papers he wants to cite.

June 11, 2008: email 1213201481

Phil Jones replies to Mike Mann, on Mann’s nomination of Jones:
On point 1 (what Mann called “N”), this is what people call the H index.
I’ve tried working this out, and there is software for it on the Web of Science
website.
The problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software,
but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in
journals I’d never heard of and got 52. I think this got rid of some biologist
from the 1970s and 1980s, so go with 52.
I don’t have soft copies of the early papers. I won’t be able to do anything
for a few days either. When do you want this in, by the way?
Again, Jones reveals that there is no electronic archiving system at the Climatic
Research Unit. Mike Mann:
OK—thanks, I’ll just go with the H = 62. That is an impressive number and
almost certainly higher than the vast majority of American Geophysical
Union Fellows.
Mann ignores Jones’s own disclaimer that the figure of 62 is wrong, and decides to use
it regardless.
In a later email:
I’ll … send you a copy of my nominating letter for comment and suggestions
when I am done.

119
 Also—can you provide one or two sentences about the 1980 and 1981
Nature articles with Wigley so that I might be able to work this briefly into
the narrative of my letter?
So he doesn’t even feel the need to have a broad understanding of the papers, but will
let Jones write his own accolades of himself. Jones replies:
The 1980 and 1981 papers: I don’t have soft copies.
(summarizes each paper in one paragraph)
I did look a while ago to see if Nature had back-scanned these papers, but
they hadn’t.
Is the above enough? I have hard copies of these two papers—in Norwich.
Note that Jones does not take the opportunity of asking Mann to use the correct figure
of H = 52 rather than 62. Jones is going along with Mann’s deception of the American
Geophysical Union.
Mann:
Thanks, Phil—yes, that’s perfect. I just wanted to have some idea of the
paper; that’s more than enough information. I wouldn’t bother worrying
about scanning in, etc.
I should have a draft letter for you to comment on within a few days or so,
after I return from Trieste.
Mann assumes that Jones would have scanned in the papers, simply for the purpose of
his own nomination for an award—but previously argued against scanning in a paper
for the purposes of critical review by a skeptic. It is good to understand the priorities
of these “scientists”.

June 13, 2008: email 1213387146

Ben Santer writes to the Editor of American Liberty Publishers:
Dear Sir,
Your website (link) was recently brought to my attention. On this site, you
make the following claims:
In the Second Assessment Report, Benjamin Santer, lead author of a crucial
study, falsified a chart to make it appear to support global warming—a
conclusion not supported at all by the original data. But two climatologists,
Knappenberger and Michaels, looked up the data and exposed the fraud.
Santer said he adjusted the data to make it agree with political policy.

120
 These claims have no factual basis whatsoever, and are demonstrably
libellous. I did not falsify data. I did not commit fraud. I did not—nor have
I ever—”adjusted” scientific data “to make it agree with political policy.”
Nor did I ever state that I had made data adjustments in order to conform
to political policy.
I request that you retract these claims immediately. They are completely
fictitious, and are harmful to my scientific reputation. If you do not retract
these claims immediately, I will transfer this matter to the attention of legal
staff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Sincerely,
Dr. Benjamin Santer
United States Department of Energy Distinguished Scientist (2006)
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award (2002)
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow (1998)
Some explanatory comment is warranted here. The IPCC’s second assessment report
(SAR) was published in 1996 and the Summary for Policy Makers (SFMP) included
the oft-quoted words “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible
human influence on global climate”. These words were sourced to Chapter 8 of the
scientific working group’s report, but that report had several disclaimers of any such
influence, disclaimers that were removed by Ben Santer, the ‘lead author’ who also,
without any reference to his peers, had included the words concerning a “discernible
human influence” in the Policy Maker’s Summary. So Ben Santer, acting on the advice
of Tim Wirth, then US Under-Secretary of State and a close confidant of Al Gore,
deleted important disclaimers from the text of Chapter 8, and then wrote into the
SFPM the opposite conclusion from that of the Working Group. This led to a strong
letter of protest, published in the WSJ, from Frederick Seitz, former President of the
US National Academy of Sciences, and of the American Physical Society.
Ben Santer admitted to the truth of these events on a popular American TV programme,
hosted by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, in mid-December 2009.

June 14, 2008: email 1213882741

Mike Mann is still hard at work, getting Phil Jones his award. He writes to Jones:
Hi Phil,
I’ve attached a copy of my nomination letter. I just want to make sure
I’ve got all my facts right—please let me know if there is anything I’ve
gotten wrong or should be changed. I would be shocked is this doesn’t go
through—you’re a no-brainer, and long overdue for this.

121
 I’ve got letters from three of the five other letter writers now; I am waiting
on the two last ones, and then will submit the package.
Jones replies:
This is fine. …
Another thanks for putting this all together.
Then Jones sends an addendum:
Mike,
There is one typo in your nomination letter. I missed it the first time I read
it. In the second paragraph, second line, remove the first “surface”. You
have two, one before and one after “CRU”. Just the one after is needed.
Hilariously, Jones is correcting typos in his own nomination letter—but presumably
letting the false citation number of H = 62 stand!!
Mann:
Thanks Phil—fixed!
I am waiting on two more letters, then I’ll send in the package to the
American Geophysical Union. Should be a no-brainer!

June 21, 2008: email 1214228874

Brian Lynch writes to Caspar Ammann, regarding the loopholes used to avoid the
Freedom Of Information (FOI) request for the IPCC emails:
Subject: IPCC FOI Request
Dear Sir,
I have read correspondence on the web about your letter … in relation to
expert comments on IPCC’s Chapter 6 sent directly by you to Keith Briffa,
… outside the formal review process.
The refusal to provide these documents tends to discredit you and the
IPCC in the eyes of the public.
Could I suggest that you make your letter and documents public. I would
be very glad if you gave me a copy and oblige.
Ammann forwards the request to Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn, and Phil Jones. Jones
writes:
It doesn’t discredit the IPCC!

122
Osborn writes:
I’ve just had a quick look at Climate Audit. They seem to think that somehow
it is an advantage to send material outside the formal review process. But
anybody could have emailed us directly. It is in fact a disadvantage! If it is
outside the formal process then we could simply ignore it, whereas formal
comments had to be formally considered. Strange that they don’t realise
this and instead argue for some secret conspiracy that they are excluded
from!
It is remarkable that he assumes that anything sent outside the formal process would
be ignored, rather than actually considered! The implication is that even things that
had to be formally considered would ultimately be rejected.
He continues:
I’m not even sure if you sent me or Keith anything, despite McIntyre’s
conviction! But I’d ignore this guy’s request anyway. If we aren’t consistent
in keeping our discussions out of the public domain, then it might be
argued that none of them can be kept private. Apparently, consistency of
our actions is important.
This is an intriguing comment, and perhaps suggests the possibility that whistle-
blowing sentiments were already circulating in mid-2008.
Keith Briffa:
I have been of the opinion, right from the start of these FOI requests,
that our private, inter-collegial discussion is just that—private. Your
communication with individual colleagues was on the same basis as that
for any other person and it discredits the IPCC process not one iota not
to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these “demands”
undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality. It
is for this reason, and not because we have or have not got anything to
hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these “requests”.
An interesting choice of words by Briffa: he argues that the refusals should be based
on his opinion of the privacy of email communications—even work emails—“and not
because we have or have not got anything to hide”. In other words, he is not denying
that they have things to hide.

June 21, 2008: email 1214229243

Phil Jones writes to Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa, and Caspar Ammann, about David
Holland’s Freedom of Information requests regarding Met(eorological) Office director
John Mitchell’s involvement as a Review Editor for the IPCC:

123
 This is a confidential email.
Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the responses and letters
up.
There are three threads—two beginning with “Fortress” and a third later
one.
It is worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards—can you do this, Tim?
Tim Osborn:
So is this (confidential).
I’ve saved all three threads as they now stand. I have no time to read all the
comments, but I did note in the topic “Fortress Met(eorological) Office”
that someone has provided a link to a website that helps you to submit
Freedom Of Information requests to United Kingdom public institutions,
and subsequently someone has made a further Freedom Of Information
request to the Met(eorological)Office and someone else made one to the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). If it turns
into an organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than
to obtain useful information, then we may be able to decline all related
requests without spending ages on considering them. It is worth looking
out for evidence of such an organised campaign.
The search for loopholes continues!

July 10, 2008: email 1215712600

Ben Santer writes to Phil Jones and others, regarding their response to the Douglass
paper:
Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor (Glenn
McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is requesting
only minor changes in response to the Reviewer’s comments.
Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting better
mathematical models to the temperature data used in our paper. As noted
in our response to the Reviewer, this is a relatively minor technical point.
…
The Reviewer does not want to “see the method proposed in this paper
become established as the default method of estimating uncertainties
in climatological results”. We do not claim universal applicability of our
approach. There may well be circumstances in which it is more appropriate
to use the better models in estimating uncertainties. …

124
 I have to confess that I was a little ticked off by Reviewer 2’s comments. The
bit about “wilfully ignoring” expert mathematical literature was uncalled
for. Together with my former Max Planck Institute colleague Wolfgang
Brueggemann, I’ve fooled around with a lot of different methods of
estimating uncertainties …. One could write a whole paper on this subject
alone.
Phil Jones:
From a quick scan below, Myles does seem to be a pain! As we both know
he can be.
Ben Santer:
Myles (if it is Myles) was a bit pedantic in his second review. Karl (who is
a very-mild-mannered guy) described the tone of the review as “whining”.
It seems like the Reviewer was saying, “I’m a lot smarter than you, and I
could do all of this stuff much better than you’ve done”. I was very unhappy
about the “wilfully ignoring” bit. That was completely uncalled for.
It sounds as if Myles Allen (if it was Myles) is a lot smarter!
“Fooling around” with different methods is no substitute for actually understanding
what you should be doing.
The continuation of Jones’s technique of surreptitiously determining the identity of
anonymous reviewers—and spreading this news widely, so that the “culprit” can be
bastardized—is abhorrent.

August 20, 2008: email 1219239172

Phil Jones writes to Gavin Schmidt and Mike Mann:
Keith and Tim are still getting Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests,
as are the Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and the University of
Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now
using the same exceptions not to respond—advice they got from the
Information Commissioner.
Yet another loophole!
As an aside, and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn
himself from the IPCC Working Group 1 Lead nominations. It seems he
doesn’t want to have to deal with this hassle.
It is intriguing that outside scrutiny should cause such drastic changes of heart.

125
 The FOI line we’re all using is this: The IPCC is exempt from any
country’s FOI Act—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (the
Meteorological Office Hadley Centre, the Climatic Research Unit and
University of East Anglia) possibly hold relevant information, the IPCC is
not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc.); therefore, we don’t have
an obligation to pass it on.
It is this attempt at evading domestic law that may provide a basis for legal action
against the perpetrators.

October 26, 2008: email 1225026120

Mick Kelly writes to Phil Jones:
Hi Phil
I just updated my global temperature trend graph for a public talk, and
noticed that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so, and 2008
doesn’t look too hot.
Anticipating the skeptics latching on to this soon, if they haven’t done so
already …
It would be awkward if we went through another early-1940s-type swing!
Phil Jones:
Mick, They have noticed for years—mostly with respect to the warm year
of 1998. The recent coolish years we put down to La Nina. When I get this
question I have 1991–2000 and 2001–2007/8 averages to hand. Last time I
did this they were about 0.2 degrees different, which is what you’d expect.
Kelly:
Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, I’m
used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through
a longer—10-year—period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what
you might expect from La Nina, etc.
This is speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the graph before I give the
talk again, as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the
recent cold-ish years.
In private, they admit that there could be significant cooling; in public, they hide it.
Again: when the results don’t fit your preconceptions, fraudulently adjust them so that
the public doesn’t get the wrong idea!

126
October 31, 2008: email 1225462391
Steve McIntyre writes to Ben Santer:
Dear Dr Santer,
Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data …
used for the statistical analysis in the Santer and co-workers 2008 paper,
or a link to a website containing the data. I understand that your version
has been collated from the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it (I presume
that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1–2 megabytes).
Thank you for your attention,
Steve McIntyre
Ben Santer forwards this request to a large number of colleagues:
Dear folks,
While on travel in Hawaii, I received a request from Steven McIntyre for all
of the model data used in our International Journal of Climatology paper
(see forwarded email). After some conversation with my Program for
Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison colleagues, I have decided
not to respond to McIntyre’s request. If McIntyre repeats his request, I will
provide him with the same answer that I gave to David Douglass …

November 10, 2008: email 1226337052

Following a second request by Steve McIntyre, Ben Santer writes his promised
response, copying in his many colleagues:
Dear Mr. McIntyre,
I gather that your intent is to “audit” the findings of our recently-published
paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). … You should
have no problem in accessing exactly the same model and observational
data sets that we employed. You will need to do a little work in order to
calculate synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from
climate model atmospheric temperature information. This should not
pose any difficulties for you. Algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU
temperatures have been published by ourselves and others in the peer-
reviewed literature. You will also need to calculate spatially-averaged
temperature changes from the gridded model and observational data.
Again, that should not be too taxing.

127
 In summary, you have access to all the raw information that you require
in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our IJoC paper
are sound or unsound. I see no reason why I should do your work for
you, and provide you with derived quantities (zonal means, synthetic MSU
temperatures, etc.) which you can easily compute yourself.
Santer is placing as many impediments in McIntyre’s way as possible.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer and co-workers
IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. I gather that
you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter of the appropriate
use of statistical tools in climate research.
Just in case McIntyre didn’t get the message that he is black-balled.
Please do not communicate with me in the future.
This last sentence seems to be a standard statement of Santer’s. We will see it again.

November 11, 2008: email 1226451442

Tom Karl writes to Ben Santer, regarding Steve McIntyre’s Freedom Of Information
(FOI) request:
FYI—Jolene can you set up a conference call with all the parties listed
below, including Ben.
Ben Santer replies to Tom Karl, copying in many colleagues:
My personal opinion is that both of McIntyre’s FOI requests … are intrusive
and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific
justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is
pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away from
research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones have
shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed by further
requests for computer programs, additional material and explanations,
etc., etc.
Santer is trying to offer the ludicrous excuse that he does not have time to prepare
this material for release to McIntyre. In reality, the necessary work in carefully
documenting and archiving the material should already have been done, as a routine
part of his job.
Quite frankly, Tom, … I am unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling
the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre.

128
Santer shares the view of his colleagues that their research is “personal” and immune
from “intrusion”. If so, it should never have been published in the professional scientific
literature. Is review and replication of scientific research now a “frivolous” activity?
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of
threats and intimidation.
Those words describe exactly Santer’s response to McIntyre, copied to an extensive list
of colleagues? And where, exactly, are the threats and intimidation from McIntyre in
his requests for information?
We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear
of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we
write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.
Again, their results should be taken on their say-so, without any chance of independent
verification. This is not how science works.
In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy
of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style
investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send
McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the primary
model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I
will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide
McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very
strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific
equivalent of a playground bully.
Again, “a playground bully” is a concise description of himself.
I will be consulting Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Legal
Affairs Office in order to determine how the Department Of Energy
and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory should respond to any
Freedom Of Information requests that we receive from McIntyre. I
assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
We will see shortly the results of this consultation.
I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my
immediate superior at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at the Department Of
Energy headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who
was in charge of our paper at IJoC).
That seems to be as intimidatory as it gets.

129
 I’d be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I’m sorry that
the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today’s events,
I must assume that any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests,
and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s Climate Audit website.
Is Santer perhaps finally beginning to understand?

December 2, 2008: email 1228249747

Ben Santer’s bluff has been called. He writes to many:
Dear folks,
There has been some additional fallout from the publication of our
paper in the International Journal of Climatology. After reading Steven
McIntyre’s discussion of our paper on climateaudit.com (and reading
about my failure to provide McIntyre with the data he requested), an
official at Department Of Energy headquarters has written to Cherry
Murray at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory(LLNL), claiming that
my behavior is bringing LLNL’s good name into disrepute. Cherry is the
Principal Associate Director for Science and Technology at LLNL, and
reports to LLNL’s Director (George Miller).
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national scientific establishment
established in the 1950s with a high reputation for science and engineering. At last,
someone in an oversight position has realized that the climate scientists are running
amok and bringing this prestigious organization into disrepute.
I’m getting sick of this kind of stuff, and am tired of simply taking it on the
chin.
Accordingly, I have been trying to evaluate my options. I believe that one
option is to write a letter to Nature, briefly outlining some of the events
that have transpired subsequent to the publication of our IJoC paper. …
…
Since it was my decision not to provide McIntyre with derived data, I’m
perfectly happy to be the sole author of such a letter to Nature.
Tom Wigley realizes that independent verification is a crucial part of the scientific
process, and counsels Santer:
I support you on this. However, there is more to be said than what you give
below. For instance, it would be useful to note that, in principle, an audit
scheme could be a good thing if done properly. But an audit must start at
square one (your point). So, one can appear to applaud McIntyre at first,

130
 but then go on to note that his method of operation seems to be flawed.
Wigley then points out that they themselves have already provided their own form of
“auditing”:
The issue of auditing is a tricky one. The auditors must, themselves, be
able to demonstrate that they have no ulterior motives. One way to do this
would be to audit papers on both sides of an issue. In other words, both us
and Douglass should be audited together. In a sense, our paper is an audit
of Douglass—and we found his work to be flawed. A second opinion on
this already exists, through the refereeing of our paper. I suppose a third
opinion from the likes of McIntyre might be of value in a controversial area
like this. But then, is McIntyre the right person to do this? Is he unbiased?
Does he have the right credentials (as a statistician)?
This is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black: when superior
statisticians criticize their results, they try to lock them out as not being part of their
soft-science club.

December 3, 2008: email 1228330629

Ben Santer writes to Tom Wigley and others:
… had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m
convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin)
that I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands
for further explanations, additional data, computer programs, etc. (Phil
has been complying with Freedom Of Information (FOI) Act requests
from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years).
Santer is admitting that his lack of proper documentation and archiving of his data
and computer programs is so deficient that it would take years of work to rectify.
For the remainder of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research
agenda. I don’t want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to
Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of
my life interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre.
Santer, full of self-pity, no longer wants to work in science.
I hope Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory management will
provide me with their full support. If they do not, I’m fully prepared to
seek employment elsewhere.
I am glad to hear it. Santer is completely unsuited to science research.

131
Phil Jones describes the con job that he has apparently successfully sold within his
own institution:
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 computer
screen, to convince them otherwise, showing them what Climate Audit
was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were
dealing with, everyone at the University of East Anglia (in the Registry
(administration) and in the Environmental Sciences School—the Head of
School and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI
person quite well, and the Chief Librarian—who deals with appeals. The
Vice-Chancellor is also aware of what is going on—at least for one of the
requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are
in double figures.
Jones must be extremely convincing, to get all of these officials to be complicit in
flouting the law.
One of his tactics is, perversely, to use the sheer number of requests to argue against
their validity:
One issue is that these requests aren’t that widely known within the School.
So I don’t know who else at the University of East Anglia may be getting
them. The Climatic Research Unit is moving up the ladder of requests at
the University of East Anglia though. … We’re aware of requests going to
others in the United Kingdom—Meteorological Office Hadley Centre, the
University of Reading, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, and Imperial College.
Jones now describes how he evaded the latest request:
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.
In response to FOI and Environmental Information Regulations requests,
we’ve put up some data—mainly paleoclimatology data. Each request
generally leads to more—to explain what we’ve put up. Every time, so
far, that hasn’t led to anything being added by us—instead we just put up
statements saying “Read what is in the papers and what is on the web site!”
Tim Osborn sent one such response (via the FOI person) earlier this week.
We’ve never sent computer programs … or manuals.

132
December 9, 2008: email 1228922050
Ben Santer catches on to Phil Jones’s strategy of arguing that a greater number of
requests implies lower credibility and validity, rather than the opposite:
I had a quick question for you: What is the total number of Freedom Of
Information (FOI) Act requests that you’ve received from Steven McIntyre?
Jones replies:
I haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at the University of East
Anglia. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. … I did get
an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t
be deleting emails—unless this was “normal” deleting to keep emails
manageable!
McIntyre hasn’t paid his 10 pounds, so nothing looks likely to happen
regarding his Data Protection Act email.
Anyway, requests have been of three types—observational data,
paleoclimatology data, and who made IPCC changes and why. …
According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, the IPCC is an international
organization, so is above any national FOI Act. Even if the University of
East Anglia holds anything about the IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it
on, unless it has anything to do with our core business—and it doesn’t! I’m
sounding like Sir Humphrey here!
At least Jones recognizes that his arguments are as ridiculous as the fictional public
servant in the famous television series Yes Minister. The Climatic Research Unit’s “core
business” has nothing to do with the IPCC?
Finally, I know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) receive Parliamentary Questions from Members
of Parliament to answer. One of these two months ago was from a
Conservative Member of Parliament asking how much money DEFRA
has given to the Climatic Research Unit over the last five years. DEFRA
replied that they don’t give money—they award grants based on open
competition. DEFRA’s computer system also told them there were no
awards to the Climatic Research Unit, as when we do get something it is
written down as going to the University of East Anglia!
More loopholes! Sir Humphrey would indeed be proud.
I’ve occasionally checked DEFRA responses to FOI requests—all from
David Holland.
It is remarkable that Jones should have access to this level of information.

133
December 16, 2008: email 1229468467
Ben Santer writes to many:
I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made
a request to United States Department Of Energy (DOE) Headquarters
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). … I was made aware of the
FOIA request earlier this morning.
McIntyre clearly realized that, if he went high enough, someone would take note of
Santer’s recalcitrant attitude.
McIntyre’s request eventually reached the United States DOE National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The
requested records are to be provided to the “FOIA Point of Contact”
(presumably at NNSA) by December 22, 2008.
In other words, he has been ordered to provide the data as requested—within six days.
Over the past several weeks, I’ve had a number of discussions about
the “FOIA issue” with the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison (PCMDI)’s Director (Dave Bader), with other Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) colleagues, and with colleagues
outside of the Lab. Based on these discussions, I have decided to “publish”
all of the climate model data that we used in our International Journal of
Climatology (IJoC) paper.
In other words, he didn’t “decide” to provide the data; rather, his colleagues and
superiors told him that his refusal to provide the data was wrong.
This will involve putting these data sets through an internal “Review
and Release” procedure, and then placing the data sets on the PCMDI’s
publicly-accessible website. The website will also provide information
on how synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures were
calculated, anomaly definition, analysis periods, etc.
This procedure should already have been carried out for such internationally crucial
data.
After publication of the model data, we will inform the “FOIA Point of
Contact” that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly available
for genuine scientific research. Unfortunately, we cannot guard against
intentional or unintentional misuse of these data sets by McIntyre or
others.
It is neither Santer’s responsibility nor prerogative to determine who uses the data, or
for what purposes.

134
 I hope that “publication” of the synthetic MSU temperatures resolves this
matter to the satisfaction of the NNSA, DOE Headquarters, and LLNL.
In other words, all of these levels of management told him that his refusal to provide all
the data was wrong.
Tom Wigley replies, showing that his support is not of Santer, but of the principles of
scientific accountability:
This is a good idea. … To have these numbers on line would be of great
benefit to the community. In other words, although prompted by McIntyre’s
request, you will actually be giving something to everyone.

January 5, 2009: email 1231190304

Phil Jones writes to Tim Johns, Chris Folland, and Doug Smith, regarding temperature
predictions:
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met(eorological) Office press release
with Doug’s paper that said something like—“half the years to 2014 would
exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998”!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying “where’s the
warming gone”? I know the warming is on the decades scale, but it would
be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Jones’s next complaint is simply hilarious:
Chris—I presume the Meteorology Office continually monitor the weather
forecasts. Maybe it’s because I’m in my 50s, but the language used in the
forecasts seems a bit over the top regarding the cold. Where I’ve been for
the last 20 days (in Norfolk) it doesn’t seem to have been as cold as the
forecasts.
Jones wants the United Kingdom’s national weather service to use more “warmist”
language?

January 6, 2009: email 1231257056

Ben Santer writes to many:
I am forwarding an email I received this morning from a Mr. Geoff Smith.

135
 The email concerns the climate model data used in our recently-
published International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Mr. Smith
has requested that I provide him with these climate model data sets. This
request has been made to Dr. Anna Palmisano at Department Of Energy
(DOE)Headquarters and to Dr. George Miller, the Director of Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).
Another request for data. One would think that, by now, Santer has his data in order.
I have spent the last two months of my scientific career dealing with
multiple requests for these model data sets under the United States
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). I have been able to do little or no
productive research during this time. This is of deep concern to me.
Santer still seems unable to comprehend that proper documentation and archiving of
data is a crucial part of his job.
He seems unwilling to learn from his last dressing-down:
I would like a clear ruling from DOE lawyers—ideally from both the
National Nuclear Security Administration and DOE Office of Science
branches—on the legality of such data requests. They are troubling, for a
number of reasons.
1. In my considered opinion, a very dangerous precedent is set if any
derived quantity that we have calculated from primary data is subject
to FOIA requests. At LLNL’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis
and Intercomparison (PCMDI), we have devoted years of effort to the
calculation of derived quantities from climate model output. … The
intellectual investment in such calculations is substantial.
Santer wants “exclusive rights” to the publicly-funded data. Even if he had managed
to secure such a lucrative arrangement, he should not have publicly published papers
based on the data.
2. Mr. Smith asserts that “there is no valid intellectual property justification
for withholding this data”. I believe this argument is incorrect. The data used
in our IJoC paper—and the other examples of derived data sets mentioned
above—are integral components of both PCMDI’s ongoing research, and of
proposals we have submitted to funding agencies (DOE, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration).
So, this is about money.
Can any competitor simply request such data sets via the United States
FOIA, before we have completed full scientific analysis of these data sets?

136
Santer’s characterization of independent researchers as “competitors” is disturbing.
Climate scientists should not seek to profit from their research—particularly not
when their public pronouncements on the issue are used to lobby for political policy
changes.
3. There is a real danger that such FOIA requests could (and are already)
being used as a tool for harassing scientists rather than for valid scientific
discovery. Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests to the DOE and the NOAA are
but the latest in a series of such requests. In the past, Mr. McIntyre has
targeted scientists at Penn State University, the United Kingdom’s Climatic
Research Unit, and the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville. Now
he is focusing his attention on me. The common denominator is that Mr.
McIntyre’s attention is directed towards studies claiming to show evidence
of large-scale surface warming, and/or a prominent human “fingerprint”
in that warming. These serial FOIA requests interfere with our ability to
do our job.
That would sound like a reasonable set of studies for McIntyre to target. Again, Santer
misunderstands that “doing his job” properly in the first place would have obviated
the need to clean up his mess at this late date.
As many of you may know, I have decided to publicly release the data that
were the subject of Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA request … These data sets have
been through internal review and release procedures, and will be published
shortly on PCDMI’s website, together with a technical document which
describes how they were calculated. I agreed to this publication process
primarily because I want to spend the next few years of my career doing
research. I have no desire to be “taken out” as scientist, and to be involved
in years of litigation.
If Mr. McIntyre’s past performance is a guide to the future, further FOIA
requests will follow. I would like to know that I have the full support of
LLNL management and the United States Department of Energy in dealing
with these unwarranted and intrusive requests.
I do not intend to reply to Mr. Smith’s email.
Santer has learnt nothing.
Stephen Schneider:
I had a similar experience—but not FOIA since we at Climatic Change
are a private institution—with Stephen McIntyre demanding that I have
the Mann and co-workers cohort publish all their computer programs for
papers published in Climatic Change. I put the question to the editorial
board who debated it for weeks. The vast majority opinion was that

137
 scientists should give enough information on their data sources and
methods so others who are scientifically capable can do their own brand
of replication work, but that this does not extend to personal computer
programs with all their undocumented parts, etc. It would be an odious
requirement to have scientists document every line of code so outsiders
could then just apply them instantly. Not only is this an intellectual property
issue, but it would dramatically reduce our productivity since we are not
in the business of producing software products for general consumption
and have no resources to do so. The National Science Foundation, which
funded the studies I published, concurred—so that ended that issue with
Climatic Change at the time a few years ago.
This is a startling admission on the part of Schneider: that computer programs
throughout climate science are so shoddily written and poorly documented—or even
completely undocumented—that they do not even reach the minimal standards
required of high school students. His allegation that his funding agency, the National
Science Foundation, supported this stance is, hopefully, under investigation by that
agency.
This continuing pattern of harassment, as Ben rightly puts it in my
opinion, in the name of due diligence is in my view an attempt to create a
fishing expedition to find minor glitches or unexplained bits of computer
programs—which exist in nearly all our kinds of complex work—and then
assert that the entire result is thus suspect.
Again, this demonstrates a hopelessly amateurish attitude to computer programming.
Glitches could indeed render the entire result false: that is why good documentation,
verification, and replication are vital parts of science.
Our best way to deal with this issue of replication is to have multiple
independent author teams, with their own programs and data sets,
publishing independent work on the same topics—like has been done
on the “hockey stick”. That is how credible scientific replication should
proceed.
It is ironic that Schneider quotes the discredited “hockey stick” in support of his
suggestion—which is one possible arm of a validation and verification process, but
most certainly not a comprehensive blueprint.
Let the lawyers figure this out, but be sure that, like Ben is doing now, you
disclose the maximum reasonable amount of information so that competent
scientists can do replication work, but short of publishing undocumented
personalized programs etc. The end of the email Ben attached shows their
intent—to discredit papers so they have no “evidentiary value in public
policy”—what you resort to when you can’t win the intellectual battle
scientifically at the IPCC or the National Academy of Sciences.

138
The most disturbing aspect of this commentary is that Schneider completely
understands the enormous public policy ramifications of this research—yet still
expresses such remarkably naive sentiments. He still thinks enormous public policy
decisions should be based on the results from undocumented and unchecked personal
computer programs.
Good luck with this, and expect more of it as we get closer to international
climate policy actions. We are witnessing the “contrarian Battle of the
Bulge” now, and expect that all weapons will be used.
PS Please do not copy or forward this email.
The need for confidentiality is becoming more apparent to the co-conspirators. Do
they sense a dissenter or a whistle-blower in the ranks?

January 29, 2009: email 1233249393

Phil Jones writes to Ben Santer about some delightfully unexpected news:
I heard during the International Detection and Attribution Group meeting
that I’ve been made an American Geophysical Union Fellow. I will likely
have to go to Toronto to the Spring American Geophysical Union meeting
to collect it. I hope I don’t see a certain person (McIntyre) there! I have to
get out of a keynote talk I’m due to give in Finland the same day!

January 30, 2009: email 1233326033

Geoff Smith writes to Ben Santer:
Dear Dr. Santer,
I’m pleased to see that the requested data is now available on line. Thank
you for your efforts to make these materials available.
My “dog in this fight” is good science and replicability. I note the following
references:
The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part):
“The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of
scientists to:
1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by
others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.
2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted
with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.”

139
 Also I note the National Academy of Sciences booklet “On Being a
Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research” (2nd edition) states “After
publication, scientists expect that data and other research materials will be
shared with qualified colleagues upon request. Indeed, a number of federal
agencies, journals, and professional societies have established policies
requiring the sharing of research materials. Sometimes these materials
are too voluminous, unwieldy, or costly to share freely and quickly. But
in those fields in which sharing is possible, a scientist who is unwilling
to share research materials with qualified colleagues runs the risk of not
being trusted or respected. In a profession where so much depends on
interpersonal interactions, the professional isolation that can follow a
loss of trust can damage a scientist’s work.” I know that the 3rd edition
is expected soon, but I cannot imagine this position will be weakened.
Indeed, with electronic storage of data increasing dramatically, I expect
that most of the exceptions are likely to be dropped.
I understand that science is considered by some to be a “blood sport” and
that there are serious rivalries and disputes. Nevertheless, the principles
above are vital to the continuation of good science, wherever the results
may lead.
Again, I thank you for making the data available, and I wish you success in
your future research.
Kind regards,
Geoff Smith
I couldn’t express it better myself.
Ben Santer’s reply:
Dear Mr. Smith,
Please do not lecture me on “good science and replicability”. Mr. McIntyre
had access to all of the primary model and observational data necessary
to replicate our results. Full replication of our results would have required
Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was unwilling to do that.
Santer is still labouring under the misunderstanding that his research remains
“private”.
Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the
Douglass and co-workers statistical test and our statistical test with
randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose
not to do that.

140
Santer’s arrogance extends to dictating that McIntyre must do only as Santer and his
co-workers did. It does not seem to occur to him that the principles of statistics are
not the exclusive domain of his small group of colleagues.
He preferred to portray himself as a victim of evil Government-funded
scientists. A good conspiracy theory always sells well.
Ironic, given that Tom Wigley has described themselves in precisely those terms.
Mr. Smith, you chose to take the extreme step of writing to Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and the Department Of Energy
management to complain about my “unresponsiveness” and my failure to
provide data to Mr. McIntyre.
Let us see if Santer has decided to become more “responsive”.
Your email to George Miller and Anna Palmisano was highly critical
of my behaviour in this matter. Your criticism was entirely unjustified,
and damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in
establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in
the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or post it
on Mr. McIntyre’s blog.
Now where have we seen the phrase “Please do not communicate with me in the
future” before? In his reply to Steve McIntyre on November 10, 2008. There’s not much
chance of “the open exchange of data, procedures and materials” with Ben Santer.

February 2, 2009: email 1233586975

Geoff Smith writes to Phil Jones, trying to clarify the situation:
Dear Prof. Jones,
(provides reference to the paper in question)
As you are a co-author of the referenced paper, you may be interested to
know of developments (in case you have not heard already).
You will be aware that intermediate data … had been requested from the
first author, Dr. Santer. A refusal has been posted online, but in the mean
time the data is now available at (link).
Perhaps you had this data already, but other co-authors have reportedly
claimed (earlier) they did not have the data. A typical reported response to
a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request was, “I have examined my
files and have no data from climate models used in the paper referred to,
and no correspondence regarding said data.”

141
 No one disputes Dr. Santer’s claim that the “primary model data” is publicly
available, but there is a strong case to be made that intermediate results,
e.g., collation of such data and the relevant computer programs should
be made available in studies such as this one, since there is an important
possibility of errors in trying to replicate such a collation. The archiving
of such intermediate results is required for econometrics journals, among
others.

It is further reported online that the posting of the data was not pursuant to
an FOIA order, but posted voluntarily (although likely at the request of the
funding agency, the Department of Energy, Office of Science). I hope other
scientists will take this type of voluntary action. You may have heard that
Professor Hardaker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Royal Meteorological
Society, which publishes the International Journal of Climatology, has
confirmed that the issue of data archiving will be on the agenda for the
next meeting of the Society’s Scientific Publishing Committee. There is
a need for journals as well as funding agencies, and publishing scientists
themselves, to establish and enforce good data and computer program
archiving policies. A more precise definition of “recorded factual material
commonly accepted in the scientific community as necessary to validate
research findings” is probably overdue.

I hope the Hadley Centre will take a lead in this issue. From time to time
I’ll look at the progress on archiving, but in the mean time, no reply is
necessary.

Kind regards,

Geoff Smith

Jones writes to Ben Santer:

Is this the Smith who has emailed? …

I’m not on a Royal Meteorological Society committee at the moment, but

I could try and contact Paul Hardaker if you think it might be useful. I
possibly need to explain what is “raw” and what is “intermediate”.

I wasn’t going to give this guy Smith the satisfaction of a reply!

Instead of improving their data and computer program archiving standards, Jones
is only interested in influencing the committee that will revise the minimum
requirements.

Santer replies:

142
 Yes, this is the same Geoff Smith who wrote to me. Do you know who he
is? From his comments about the Royal Meteorological Society, he seems
to be a Brit.

I think it would be useful to raise these issues with Paul Hardaker.

Agreement has been reached that the best way forward is to influence the Royal
Meteorological Society.

March 19, 2009: email 1237496573

Phil Jones writes to Paul Hardaker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Royal
Meteorological Society (RMS):

This email came overnight—from Tom Peterson, who works at the National
Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina.

(link to article)

“Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the United
Kingdom.”

We all know that this is not my job. The paper being referred to appeared in
the Journal of Geophysical Research last year. The paper is (cites reference).
The paper clearly states where I work—the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia. There is no mention of the Hadley Centre!

There is also no about-face as stated on the web page.

I am sending you this as it gives a good example of the sort of people you
are dealing with when you might be considering changes to data policies
at the RMS.

So the RMS should refrain from improving its policies because someone in the United
States erroneously associated Jones with the wrong United Kingdom climate science
institution? It is hardly surprising that people mistakenly confuse the two organizations,
because they work closely together, as evidenced by the joint development of climatic
data sets such as “HADCRUT3”.

There are probably wider issues due to climate change becoming more
mainstream in the more popular media that the RMS might like to consider.
I just think you should be aware of some of the background. The Climatic
Research Unit has had numerous Freedom Of Information requests since
the beginning of 2007. The Met(eorological) Office, the University of

143
 Reading, the National Climatic Data Center and the Goddard Institute
for Space Studies have had as well—many related to IPCC involvement.
I know the world changes and the way we do things changes, but these
requests and these sorts of simple mistakes should not have an influence
on the way things have been adequately dealt with for over a century.
Ah, reminiscing to the “good old days” when the old boys’ club wasn’t accountable to
anyone.
Ben Santer is still not going to let anyone have access to his data and methods:
If the RMS is going to require authors to make all data available—raw
data plus results from all intermediate calculations—I will not submit any
further papers to RMS journals.
Phil Jones:
I don’t know whether they even had a meeting yet—but I did say I would
send something to their Chief Executive.
Jones clearly believes that he holds some sway over Hardaker.
I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about
him to the RMS Chief Executive. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be
sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from
the RMS.
The same tactics, yet again.
It is quite possible that Jones would have resigned from enough societies and black-
balled enough journals that he would have effectively put himself into early retirement,
even if Climategate hadn’t effectively ended his career eight months after this email!

May 4, 2009: email 1241415427

Tom Wigley writes to Phil Jones and Ben Santer, attaching an extensive report from
the Internet, “Climate science fraud at Albany University?” This continues the saga
that we first encountered over two years previously (April 21, 2007) in which Doug
Keenan had raised questions about a paper of Phil Jones and Wei-Chyung Wang from
1990. The report included the following comment:
Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information
Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I
was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under
British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had
committed fraud.

144
Wigley writes:
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide
Keenan with the Department Of Energy report that shows that there are
no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore
thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of …
“… station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in
instrumentation, location, or observation times”
(THIS IS ITEM “X”)
(Discusses two possibilities, both problematical for Wang)
Now my views. (1) I have always thought Wei-Chyung Wang was a rather
sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here.
But ITEM X is in both the Wei-Chyung Wang and Jones and co-worker
papers—so where does it come from first? Were you taking Wei-Chyung
Wang on trust?
Wigley has not only passed judgment on Wang—he furthermore fears that Jones and
colleagues didn’t even check the data that they used.
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To
accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint
and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
Such actions eclipse their allegations that Keenan breached a confidentiality agreement
with the State University of New York; Wigley’s damning observation reveals their
“investigation” to be nothing more than a whitewash.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched. ITEM
X really should have been …
(modified version of ITEM X)
… but this is not what the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and Wei-Chyung Wang not simply say this right at
the start? Perhaps it’s not too late?
Wigley’s lamentations suggest that this is simply wishful thinking.
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble-maker and out to waste time, so I
apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I am
concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of the
Climatic Research Unit and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually
should stop with me.

145
Despite labelling Keenan as a trouble-maker rather than a seeker after truth, Wigley is
facing up squarely to the realization of this scandal—and accepting responsibility for
it as their leader, despite being unaware of it at the time. This speaks volumes about
his fundamental integrity. However, where is the concern that this fraudulent data has
been used for 19 years, and where are the suggestions for dealing with the research
that has used this false data for 19 years?

May 16, 2009: email 1242749575

Let us now gain some further insight into the fundamental character of Mike Mann.
He writes to Phil Jones:

On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem

with some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the
favor (of being awarded a Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union)
this year ?

Now we know why he was so adamant about securing Jones’s award!

I’ve looked over the current list of American Geophysical Union 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.

If he does say so himself.

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.

I’m looking forward to catching up with you some time soon, probably at
some exotic location of Henry’s choosing.

Does any remnant of doubt remain that awards in this field are absolutely and
completely meaningless? Mann may as well pin a gold star on his own chest!

Jones understands the obligation:

I’ll email Ray and Malcolm. I’d be happy to contribute.

Mann:

Thanks much, Phil.

Later, Jones sends an update:

146
 Mike,

Have gotten replies—they’re both happy to write supporting letters, but

both are too busy to take it on this year. One suggested waiting till next
year. Malcolm is supporting one other person this year. I’d be happy to do
it next year, so I can pace it over a longer period. Malcolm also said that
(skeptic Fred) Singer had an American Geophysical Union Fellowship!

But that would be impossible!

What with all the work that these fine fellows (and Fellows) were busy with—lining
up to award each other in every conceivable combination, with all the paper-work
involved—it is no surprise that they didn’t have enough time to properly document or
archive their data or computer programs!

Apart from my meetings, I have skeptics on my back—still; I can’t seem to

get rid of them. Also the new United Kingdom climate scenarios are giving
government ministers the jitters, as they don’t want to appear stupid when
they introduce them (late June?).

So even government ministers realise that they will look stupid trying to forecast the
climate in 50 and 100 years’ time, when they can’t even forecast next week’s weather.

Mann:

Thanks much, Phil,

That sounds good. So why don’t we wait until next round (June 2010) on
this then. That will give everyone an opportunity to get their ducks in a
row. Plus I’ll have one more Nature and one more Science paper on my
resume by then (more about that soon!). I’ll be sure to send you a reminder
sometime next May or so!

Well that’s one onerous task that can be struck off the schedule!

The contrarians’ attacks certainly have not abated. The only hope is that
they’ll increasingly be ignored.

He hopes scientific skepticism will be ignored by the media and governments. Given
that the very important Copenhagen summit was just seven months away, Mann’s
confidence in their ability to avoid scrutiny is highly optimistic.

May 26, 2009: email 1243369385

Darrell Kaufman, of Northern Arizona University, to many:

147
 Co-authors:

I just received the reviewers’ comments and editor’s decision on our Science
manuscript (attached).…

(2) The reviewer suggested that, if we are concerned about (a standard

issue in statistics), we should attempt a so-called “robust” regression
procedure, such as median absolute deviation regression. Does anyone
have experience with this?

You’ve got to be kidding! They don’t even know what this is? Do any of these climate
scientists understand statistics?

July 19, 2009: email 1248902393.txt

Phil Jones writes to Tom Peterson, of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in
the United States:

I have a question for you. I’m going to write a small document for our
web site to satisfy (probably the wrong word) the 50 or so Freedom Of
Information / Environmental Information Regulations requests we’ve
had over the weekend. I will put up the various agreements we have with
Met(eorological) Services.

That he so nicely “hides behind”.

The question—I think you told me one time that you had a file containing
all the data you couldn’t release (i.e. it’s not in the Global Historical
Climatology Network).… Do you know off-hand how much data is in
this category? Would the NCDC mind if I mentioned that you have such
data—not the amount or locations or anything, just that there is some?

More restrictions to hide behind! And Jones is explicitly trying to not put specific
bounds on which data is restricted in this way—so that he can apply the excuse to
anything and everything!

Peterson replies:

Data that we can’t release is a tricky thing here at NCDC. Periodically,

Tom Karl will twist my arm to release data that would violate agreements
and therefore hurt us in the long run, so I would prefer that you don’t
specifically cite me or NCDC in this.

148
In other words, they do release data, against these very agreements that Jones wants
to hide behind. Importantly, Peterson does not want to be dragged in to supporting
Jones. Are cracks beginning to appear?

But I can give you a good alternative. You can point to the Peterson–
Manton article on regional climate change workshops. All those workshops
resulted in data being provided to the author of the peer-reviewed paper
with a strict promise that none of the data would be released. So far as
far as I know, we have all lived up to that agreement—myself with the
Caribbean data (so that is one example of data I have that are not released
by NCDC), Lucie and Malcolm for South America, Enric for Central
America, Xuebin for Middle Eastern data, Albert for south/central Asian
data, John Ceasar for South-East Asia, Enric again for central Africa, etc.
The point being that such agreements are common and are the only way
that we have access to quantitative insights into climate change in many
parts of the world. Many countries don’t mind the release of derived data,
but very much object to the release of actual data (which they might sell to
potential users). Does that help?

Again, restrictions on access to data.

July 30, 2009: email 1249007192

Kevin Trenberth to Mike Mann and others, regarding their submission to the Journal
of Geophysical Research:

I think you should argue that it should be expedited for the reasons of
interest by the press. The key question is who was the editor who handled
the original, because this is an implicit criticism of that person. We may
need to point this out, and ensure that someone else handles it.

Is there any journal left in their field that they are not threatening in one form or
another? Should papers be published expeditiously because of press interest? Such an
attitude is anathema to any semblance of worth left in the “peer review” process in
this field.

Mike Mann:

Folks, I was thinking exactly the same thing … it does immediately call
into suspicion the integrity of the review process.

We probably need to take this directly to the Chief Editor at the Journal
of Geophysical Research, asking that this not be handled by the editor
who presided over the original paper, as this would represent a conflict of

149
 interest. If we are told that is not possible, then we would at least want the
Chief Editor himself to closely monitor the handling of the paper.

I too am happy to sign off at this point.

August 5, 2009: email 1249503274

The Journal of Geophysical Research’s standard request:
Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and
could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues
who are close associates, collaborators, or family members.
Phil Jones flouts the requirements, explicitly, by considering people that are close
associates and collaborators:
I agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi-
retired, and, like Mike Wallace, may not be responsive to requests from the
Journal of Geophysical Research.
We have Ben Santer in common! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion. I’d
go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
To get a spread, I’d go with three in the United States, one Australian, and
one in Europe. So I suggest Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
All of them know the sorts of things to say—about our Comment and the
awful original, without any prompting.
To be “prompting” the reviewers of their Comment would, in itself, already be a
serious violation of professional ethics; but to propose reviewers who already “know
the sorts of things to say” is simply corrupt.

September 3, 2009: email 1252154659

Nick McKay writes to many, including Darrell Kaufman and Jonathan Overpeck, over
a criticism by Steve McIntyre that the conspirators had flipped a data set upside down
when they used it:
I haven’t checked the original reference for its interpretation, but I checked
our computer program and we did use the data in the orientation that
McIntyre stated. He’s also right that flipping the data to the correct
orientation doesn’t affect any of the conclusions. Actually, flipping it makes
it fit in better with the 1900-year trend.
Wonderful!

150
 I’ve attached a plot of the original, and another with the data flipped.
The next day:
The data was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said.
I took a look at the original reference—the temperature proxy we looked
at is X-ray density, which the author of the data interprets to be inversely
related to temperature. We had higher values of X-ray density as warmer
in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we
decided to reinterpret the record, which I don’t remember. Darrell, does
this sound right to you?
Again, it is absolutely astounding that they did not meticulously document where the
data came from, what assumptions were made, how it was interpreted and applied,
and so on. They are relying on their memories!
In Darrell Kaufman’s reply:
Regarding the “upside down man”, as Nick’s plot shows, when flipped, the
data has little impact on the overall graphs. Also, the data was not included
in the calibration.
According to Nick McKay, these points were already made by McIntyre.
Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that I flipped the … data. … I should have
used the inverse of density as the temperature proxy. I probably got
confused by the fact that the 20th century shows very high density values
and I inadvertently equated that directly with temperature.
Is there any clearer sign that they were working towards predetermined conclusions?
To decide which way to orient the data just by “how it looks for the 20th century”
demonstrates an extremely poor methodology.
This is new territory for me, but not acknowledging an error might come
back to bite us. I suggest that we nip it in the bud and write a brief update
showing the corrected composite (Nick’s graph) and post it to our website.
Do you all agree?
To Kaufman’s credit, he acknowledges his mistake, and suggests a reasonable path of
action to correct it. What is astounding is the behind-the-scenes anarchy.
Kaufman is also concerned that they have stretched the truth:
McIntyre wrote to me to request the yearly data that we used to calculate
the 10-year averages. The only “non-published” data are yearly data from
the ice cores … We stated this in the footnote, but it does stretch our
assertion that all of the data are available publicly. Bo (Vinther): How do
you want to proceed? Should I forward the yearly data to McIntyre?

151
Again, an admirable admission—but one that further confirms that the difficulties
faced by McIntyre and other skeptics were absolutely real, and not fabricated or
frivolous.

I’m also thinking that I should write to the authors of the data directly to
apologize for inadvertently reversing their data.

Another good suggestion. Perhaps they should also write to Steve McIntyre, thanking
him for pointing out the error?

September 5, 2009: email 1252164302

Jonathan Overpeck responds to Darrell Kaufman’s email to the co-authors:

Darrell and others—Please write all emails as though they will be made
public.

Overpeck realizes that “the lid will be blown” imminently.

I would not rush and I would not respond to any of them until the best
strategy is developed—I don’t want to waste anyone’s time, including yours
or McIntyre’s. Since the graph in Science has an error, I think you do need
to publish a correction in Science. … I don’t think you have a choice here.

Overpeck is on the defensive: he understands the crisis and its ramifications.

Kaufman’s question about data is tricky. Giving McIntyre the data would
be good, but only if it is yours to give. You can’t give him data that you got
from others and are not allowed to share. But it would be nice if he could
have access to all the data that we used—that’s the way science is supposed
to work. See what Mike and Ray say…

Overpeck acknowledges “the way science is supposed to work”, but he also knows the
mantra of their leaders that the data is “private property”, and that they should “hide
behind” every agreement that they have signed with its providers.

Be careful, very careful. But now you know why I advocated redoing all the
analyses a few months ago—to make sure we got it all right. We knew we’d
get this scrutiny.

Again, Overpeck senses the impending catastrophe. The mind-set is now to get it
right—not because it is important to get it right, but simply because they know
that others can now check it. Clearly, all previous work has never been thoroughly
checked.

152
September 6, 2009: email 1252233095
Bo Vinther responds to Darrell Kaufman’s email to the co-authors:
I will suggest that we release the 1860–2000 section of the yearly ice core
data, as these are the data that go into Figure 2 in the paper. Such a limited
release I can permit immediately. Releasing everything is something
different, and I can’t see the need—as far as I remember we are not
presenting or using the 1–1859 part of the data anywhere in the paper—or
am I wrong?
Vinther clearly believes that data relating to the paper must be released—but only that
much, no more.
Kaufman:
Regarding the yearly data: You’re correct that we only use 10-year averages
throughout our calculations (Figure 2 shows yearly values, but they are
not used in any calculation or conclusion). In his e-mail to me, McIntyre
requested the yearly data that we say are not publicly available as a footnote
to Table S1.
Unless anyone has another suggestion, I will reply and send him the 10-year
data (which is already posted at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Paleoclimate website) and explain that they were the basis
for all of the calculations. He might want the annual data that the averages
were based on. I suppose we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
Kaufman is now proposing that McIntyre should only be given the data that would
allow him to replicate some of their calculations, not the data he requested—and
would not allow him to replicate their Figure 2 at all. Such hair-splitting is a farce.

September 28, 2009: email 1254147614

Tom Wigley writes to Phil Jones:
Here are some speculations on correcting sea temperatures to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the
1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip
by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, then this would be significant for the global
average—but we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 degrees Celsius here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean
blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the
land blip …

153
 It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still
left with “why the blip?”

Why not just leave the data alone, and not try to fudge it to support a preconceived
conclusion? Why not actually explain the blip?

September 29, 2009: email 1254230232

Phil Jones writes to Tim Osborn, Mike Mann, and Gavin Schmidt, regarding McIntyre’s
analysis of Keith Briffa’s Russian tree-ring results:

I totally agree that these attacks (for want of a better word) are getting
worse. Comments on the thread are snide in the extreme, with many saying
they see no need to submit the results to a journal. They have proved Keith
has manipulated the data, so job done.

Given the control that Jones and his colleagues had over the journals (and their stated
intention to regard as essentially nonexistent those that publish skeptical papers),
perhaps it is more than reasonable to say “job done” once they have proved that Briffa
manipulated the data!

September 29, 2009: email 1254258663

Mike Mann, responding to Andy Revkin of the New York Times:

So, even if there were a problem with Briffa’s data, it wouldn’t matter as far
as the key conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don’t
think there is any problem with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre
has greatly distorted the actual information content of these data. It will
take folks a few days to get to the bottom of this, in Keith’s absence.

We return to the familiar tune: even if this result is wrong, there are other results that
say the same thing. In some contexts, such an argument would hold weight. But we
know that, in this field, Mann and his colleagues tortured all data that came their
way until it appeared to support their predetermined conclusions; and, moreover,
McIntyre almost had to perform a miracle to squeeze enough data and computer
programs out of the gang to show that there was a problem. In such an environment—
and with the insight we now have into their methods and practices—the inescapable
conclusion is that all of their results are suspect.

If McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the

journal in question. Of course, the last time he tried that (with our 1998
article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and
bluster about … Antarctic warming, it’s now nearing a year and nothing

154
 has been submitted. So it’s more likely he won’t submit a paper for peer-
reviewed scrutiny, or if he does get his criticism “published” it will be in
the discredited contrarian home journal Energy and Environment. I’m sure
you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get
their crap published in legitimate journals.

The peer-review Catch-22 is now all too familiar to us.

And based on what? Some guy with no credentials, dubious connections

with the energy industry, and who hasn’t submitted his claims to the
scrutiny of peer review.

Fortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?

Compliments get you everywhere, in this business.

I’m sure you’re aware that you will see dozens of bogus, manufactured
distortions of the science in the weeks leading up to the vote on Cap and
Trade legislation in the United States Senate.

He will if Mann and colleagues get their many prognostications into the press!

September 29, 2009: email 1254259645

Andy Revkin of the New York Times writes to Mike Mann and Tim Osborn:

Tom Crowley has sent me a direct challenge to McIntyre to start contributing

to the reviewed literature or shut up. I’m going to post that soon.

I just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from you … a little
unclear?

It’s remarkable that Mike Mann gets to check what’s Fit to Print!

I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer-review process,
and not on the merits of the McIntyre and co-workers’ attacks.

I thought that these fellows didn’t believe in blogs?

Peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of
knowledge building happens, would you agree?

Mann has shown that, in his field, it’s certainly a herky-jerky process—but more of the
empire-building nature, than knowledge-building.

Mann replies:

155
 Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background;
please don’t quote anything I said or attribute to me without checking
specifically—thanks.
So he can put words in Revkin’s mouth, but they aren’t to be attributed to him without
his permission. Remarkable.
Regarding your point at the end—you’ve taken the words out of my mouth.
Yes.
Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic
path towards eventual truth.
Sounds fine so far.
But legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific
circles, in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in
general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that
it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. Those
such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are
not to be trusted.
Ironically, Mann’s “delegitimization” of the peer-review process will be his most
devastating legacy.

September 30, 2009: email 1254323180

Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt about the Briffa Russian tree ring
controversy:
Another issue is science by blog sites—and the then immediate response
mode. Science ought to work through the peer-review system.
Again—unless it’s Revkin’s blog site, or their own website.
Even though I’ve had loads of Freedom Of Information requests and nasty
emails, a few in the last two days have been the worst yet. I’m realizing
more what those working on animal experiments must have gone through.
Mike Mann:
It’s part of the attack of the corporate-funded attack machine, i.e. it’s a
direct and highly intended outcome of a highly orchestrated, heavily-
funded corporate attack campaign.
But Mike Mann and colleagues are the heavily-funded ones—who claim to “own” the
climate data, no less.

156
 We saw it over the summer with the health insurance industry trying to
defeat Obama’s health plan, and we’ll see it now as the United States Senate
moves on to focus on the Cap and Trade bill that passed Congress this
summer.
Here the author of the discredited “hockey stick” treats the climate change debate as
just another partisan political battle?
It isn’t coincidental that the original McIntyre and McKitrick Energy and
Environment paper with associated press release came out the day before
the United States Senate was considering the McCain–Lieberman Climate
Bill in 2005.
What about Mann and colleagues’ repeated rushing of papers into print barely hours
before the deadline to appear in the IPCC Report?
We’re doing the best we can to expose this. I hope our website post goes
some ways to exposing the campaign and pre-emptively deal with the
continued onslaught we can expect over the next month.
Ah, pre-emptive strikes are fine, as long as you’re the “good guys”.

October 2, 2009: email 1254505571

Malcolm Hughes writes to Keith Briffa:
What’s going on? On 21st September I got an email from Tom Melvin (a
colleague of Briffa’s) that contained the following paragraph, among other
more general discussion:
“Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry-picking and not
using your long Russian data set. Not used because we did not have the data.
Please, could we have the data? We will make proper acknowledgement or
coauthorship if we use the data.”
I replied pretty much straight away thus: “Hi Tom … The Russian data set
is not yet available because it has not been published. …”
So far, I have had no direct response to this email from Tom.
This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you had
asked him for the Russian data. …
In other words, Briffa has been unable to get the data from Hughes—a colleague.
Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been
discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova and co-workers. A large
proportion of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so you

157
 would not be able to critically evaluate the data as a possible climate proxy.
So the data has already been discussed in the literature, but is not available even to
Briffa (let alone skeptics).
As you know, it is my intention to be friendly, cooperative and open, but
I’m determined to get some scientific value from all the years of work I’ve
invested in the Russian … work, and in cooperation with Russia in general.
Releasing these data now would be too much.
Hughes wants to have the exclusive right to exploit the Russian data. That would be
fine—if he didn’t publicly publish papers based on that “private” data.
In his reply, Keith Briffa admits that he didn’t actually understand where the data sets
were coming from:
I fully accept and would never go behind your back to ask for the data. …
I could do without all this now—I don’t really understand what Climate
Audit are getting so hysterical about, but I feel that I cannot ignore it this
time—but I don’t feel up to getting involved. I fully admit to being out of
the loop as regards all this and having trouble getting back to it.
…—to be honest also—I actually was not really aware that the data you
were producing and that used by Sidorova were one and the same.
This is unbelievable! The conspirators are so possessive of their own data that even
their own colleagues couldn’t work out whose data were from where. How could
anyone be expected to peer-review the work? Can anyone have any faith in any of the
published papers?

October 5, 2009: email 1254746802

Phil Jones to Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt:
I assume you are both aware of this prat—Neil Craig, see below. Keith
won’t be responding.
Mike Mann:
I never acknowledge emails from people I don’t know, about topics that are
in any way sensitive. This is a perfect example of something that goes right
into the trash bin.

October 5, 2009: email 1254756944

Tom Wigley writes to Phil Jones, over the growing controversy surrounding Keith
Briffa’s research:

158
 … Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. …
But, more generally, … how does Keith explain the McIntyre graph that
compares data sets? And how does he explain the apparent “selection” of
the less well-replicated data rather that the later (better replicated) data?
Of course, I don’t know how often some of the data has really been used
in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often than McIntyre and McKitrick say—but where did they get their
information? I presume they went through papers to see if the data 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 off.
Wigley’s criticisms of Briffa have unquestioned credibility: he still supports the man,
just not his science.
And the issue of withholding 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
withholding 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.
Wigley comprehends that their “reasons” are merely excuses, and that refusing
transparency is fundamentally indefensible.

October 6, 2009: email 1254832684

Martin Lutyens, of the British CO2morrow project, writes to the Climatic Research
Unit’s Andrew Manning, the scientific consultant to CO2morrow:
I just came across an article in The Week, called “The case of the vanishing
data”. It writes in a rather wry and skeptical way about your University of
East Anglia colleagues Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, saying that only their
“homogenised” or “adjusted” historical data is available, and the original,
raw data has gone missing. Apparently some other environmental gurus
now want to look at the original data and were “fobbed off ”.
According to the article, the adjusted data forms the basis for much of
the climate change debate and, because others now want to look at the
source data, it is “at the centre of an academic spat that could have major
implications for the climate change debate”. The author of the original
article is Patrick Michaels in The National Review, who may just be stirring
it.

159
 The article concludes, “In short, the data invoked to verify the most
significant forecasts about the world’s future, have simply vanished.” Could
you comment on this please, as someone (e.g. Siemens Corporation) may
pick this up and I think we should all be forearmed by knowing what really
happened and what to say if asked.
The reality of the good ship Global Warming hitting an iceberg has started to sink
in, and the crew are looking for the lifeboats. We are here just six days away from the
Climategate whistle-blower leaking the first tranche of emails to Paul Hudson of the
British Broadcasting Corporation.
Manning forwards the query to Phil Jones:
Is this another witch hunt …? How should I respond to the email below?
(I’m in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corporation (a company
with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash
to do some carbon dioxide measurements here in the United Kingdom—it
is looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into
question (again) observed temperature increases—I thought we’d moved
the debate beyond this, but it seems that these skeptics are real die-hards!).
Phil Jones:
McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review
literature. The IPCC won’t be able to assess any of it unless he does.
What? Jones seems to think that even exposing the missing data is something that has
to run through the gauntlet of their “peer review”.
Your dad (Martin Manning, Director of Climate Change at the New
Zealand Climate Change Research Institute) and Susan Solomon have had
run-ins with him and others.
So this is now a generational feud?
So other groups around the world have also entered into agreements
restricting access to data. I know this doesn’t make it right, but it is the
way of the world with both instrumental and paleoclimatology data. I
frequently try and get data from other people without success, sometimes
from people who send me a soft copy of their paper, then tell me they can’t
send me the data that generated their plots.
At last, Jones admits that all this “hiding” is not right—but he tries to deflect the blame
onto others.
It is the right-wing web sites doing all this, presumably in the build up to
Copenhagen.

160
As with Mann in the United States, so with Jones in the United Kingdom: it is all a
partisan political battle.

October 8, 2009: email 1255095172

Rick Piltz, founder of Climate Science Watch in the United States, writes to Ben Santer,
copying in Tom Wigley, Tom Karl, Jim Hansen, Bob Watson, Mike MacCracken, and
John Mitchell:
Gentlemen—
I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from the Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI) (and Pat Michaels) calling for a re-opening of public
comment on EPA’s prospective “endangerment” finding on greenhouse
gases. CEI is charging that the Climatic Research Unit at the University
of East Anglia has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global
temperature record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments
and any other work that treats the United Kingdom Jones–Wigley global
temperature data record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the
petition in soft copy, with the statements by CEI and Michaels.
The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below).
They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as someone
who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation campaign,
among other things. I hit the CEI, but I don’t have a technical response to
their allegations.
So he attacked the CEI in lieu of having any valid response? And it would seem the
EPA will also have no valid response:
Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community?
Surely someone will have to, if only because the EPA will need to know
exactly what to say. And really, I believe that all of you, as the authoritative
experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has some collective
coherence.
I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website as
soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in what you
have to say to set the record straight and put things in perspective—either
on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will someone please explain this
to me?
Santer responds:
First, there was no intentional destruction of the primary source data. I
am sure that, over 20 years ago, Phil Jones could not have foreseen that

161
 the raw temperature data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the
Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pat Michaels.
Just as Santer would not have predicted receiving an email from Rick Piltz on October
8, 2009. But they most definitely should have known that they could be asked to justify
their claims, at any time—especially given the extreme public policy implications.
The critics are applying impossible legal standards to science.
Santer supports critical legislation being enacted on the basis of the science, but denies
the applicability of legal standards? His naivety is extraordinary.
They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain—and make available to
self-appointed auditors—every piece of information about every scientific
paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some vast deception on
the American public.
I support that claim: All information should be archived.
I think most ordinary citizens understand that few among us have
preserved every bank statement and every utility bill we’ve received in the
last 20 years.
Santer’s comparing what is arguably the most important scientific data in the history
of mankind to the electricity bill of a labourer in outback Wyoming must go down as
one of the more ridiculous arguments of the Climategate perpetrators.
Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his
behavior—and from his participation in this legal action—that he is being
intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to influence
opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner publicity
for himself.
Remember: only the “good guys” are permitted to influence opinion or receive
publicity.
In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked out of the American
Meteorological Society, the University of Virginia, and the scientific
community as a whole.
Santer’s tantrum, yet again.
He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks on the
reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked Tom Karl,
Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous others),
and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member of our
professional societies.
You’re either for us, or against us. “Our” professional societies are for our team only.

162
 The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of our
field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career.
They deserve medals as big as soup plates—not the kind of crap they are
receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI.
Are American Geophysical Union Fellowships awarded with soup plates? Maybe that
should be added to the privileges of the award.

October 9, 2009: email 1255095172

Ben Santer to Phil Jones:
I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I
see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out
of him. Very tempted.

October 11, 2009: email 1255298593

Phil Jones to Rick Piltz and Ben Santer:
The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we had
from some United States Department of Energy reports we published
in the mid-1980s. I would start with the Global Historical Climatology
Network data.
Jones is admitting that he does not have the raw data, and that he would need to work
backwards to “reconstruct” it—or some of it, at any rate—from printed reports. This
is patently unacceptable: there is clearly no way of verifying that this “reconstruction”
is correct!
I know that the effort would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get
around to it some time. As you’ve said, the documentation of what we’ve
done is all in the literature.
Even as Climategate is about to break, Phil Jones still believes that the world will
accept explanations of what they did, rather than the actual data itself.

October 11, 2009: email 1255352257

Narasimha Rao, a Ph.D. student at Stanford University in the United States, writes to
Stanford’s Stephen Schneider:
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, the British Broadcasting

163
 Corporation (BBC)’s reporter on climate change, on Friday (October 9)
wrote that there’s been no warming since 1998, and that Pacific oscillations
will force cooling for the next 20–30 years. It is not outrageously biased in
presentation as are other skeptics’ views.
(includes links)
The BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the United
States.
Do you think this merits an op–ed response in the BBC from a scientist?
Intriguingly, Hudson claims that he received the first tranche of emails from the
Climategate whistle-blower on October 12.
Schneider sends the email on to many of his colleagues. Mike Mann responds:
It is extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on the BBC.
It’s particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at the
BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy (Hudson) was
formerly a weather person at the Met(eorological) Office.
It seems that their “man on the ground” at the BBC (Richard Black, an environmental
correspondent) has been displaced by a person with a scientific background who
worked for the Met(eorological) Office for ten years.
Usually, we would expect a chorus of agreement with Mann. But something has
changed. Kevin Trenberth, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research:
Well I have my own article on “where the heck is global warming?” We are
asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two
days for the coldest days on record. …
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and
it is a travesty that we can’t. The … data published in the August … 2009
supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the
data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
The belief system of these scientists is undergoing crisis. For decades, they have predicted
catastrophic, accelerated warming—but someone forgot to tell the Earth about it.
Rather than draw the obvious conclusions—that their predictions are wrong; that
the models that their predictions come from are inadequate—they instead start to
question the measured temperatures themselves!
It is not clear whether Trenberth realizes that, if true, his assertions would absolutely
destroy climate science, not save it; for the measured temperature data is the very best
and most direct data that we have (albeit almost impossibly intractable to analyse);

164
and if he throws out all of that data, then all that remains is a hopelessly anaemic and
ragtag collection of rotting tree stumps and melting ice tubes, without any hope at all
of calibrating these souvenirs against real-world temperature measurements.

October 14, 2009: email 1255523796

Kevin Trenberth, responding to Tom Wigley’s criticism of his comments, is beginning
to sound like a skeptic:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere
close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
make the planet brighter?
We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we
cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any
consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able
to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Mike Mann responds:
Kevin, that’s an interesting point. … But this raises the interesting question:
is there something going on here with the energy and radiation budget
which is inconsistent with the … models? I’m not sure that this has been
addressed—has it?
Rather than dispute Trenberth’s remarkable statements, Mann acknowledges that
there may be something fundamentally wrong with their climate models. Trenberth:
Here are some of the issues as I see them:
Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical
processes? Where did the heat go? …
As a physicist, these are questions that I would have been asking thirty years ago—not
stumbling across in October 2009. But I suppose that’s the difference here: these guys
are simply not physicists; and they ensured that any physicists who did wander into
their field were quickly chased off.
Trenberth admits that there are three sets of vital data that are “wanting” before they
can understand how the climate functions:
But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere
and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with sky
temperature data. That data is unfortunately wanting, and so too are the
cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking, although some of that may be
related to the ocean current changes, and burying heat at depth, where it is
not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us
later, and so we should know about it.

165
In other words, even the direct temperature measurements are indeed suspect—there
are plausible reasons why they are giving an incomplete picture.

October 14, 2009: email 1255532032

Mike Mann responds to Kevin Trenberth:

Thanks Kevin, yes, it’s a matter of what question one is asking. To argue
that the observed global average temperatures of the past decade falsify
the model projections …, as the contrarians have been fond of claiming, is
clearly wrong. But that doesn’t mean we can explain exactly what’s going
on.

Mann is almost right, but his logic is slightly muddled. Not being able to “explain
exactly what’s going on” does invalidate their model projections, without any doubt.
What it doesn’t do is “prove” any opposing view, either.

The simple fact of the matter is that the incompetence of these “scientists”—covered up
with decades of manipulation and “stacking the deck” of peer review—has left us with
absolutely no idea whether the Earth’s climate has been affected to any appreciable
degree by mankind.

That is the real travesty.

October 14, 2009: email 1255550975

Tom Wigley weighs in:

Kevin,

I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was “we can’t account for
the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are nowhere close
to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different
things—the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that
this is still lacking.

We are now debating how quickly the ship is sinking. But why didn’t any of these
scientists speak up when their paymasters said to the world, “the science is settled”?

October 27, 2009: email 1256735067

It is appropriate that Mike Mann’s last words in the Climategate repository explain
what it’s all about. To Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt:

166
 As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all; it’s about plausibly deniable
accusations.

And again: it’s tough when even your allies are starting to turn:

Be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy Revkin of The
New York Times and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable
as we’d like.

October 28, 2009: email 1256765544

And, finally, we turn to Phil Jones’s final actions in the Climategate repository, still
attempting to silence his critics by bullying tactics. He writes to Sonja Boehmer-
Christiansen’s head of department at the University of Hull:

Subject: Dr Sonja BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN

Dear Professor Haughton,

The email below was brought to my attention … It was sent by the person
named in the header of this email. I regard this email as very malicious.
Dr Boehmer-Christiansen states that it is beyond her expertise to assess
the claims made. If this is the case then she shouldn’t be sending malicious
emails like this. The two Canadians she refers to have never developed a
tree-ring chronology in their lives and McIntyre has stated several times
on his blog site that he has no aim to write up his results for publication in
the peer-review literature.

I’m sure you will be of the same opinion as me that science should be
undertaken through the peer-review literature as it has been for over 300
years. The peer-review system is the safeguard science has developed to
stop bad science being published.

And what is to safeguard us against Jones’s corruption of the peer-review process?

Haughton rejects Jones’s tactics:

Dear Phil, sorry to hear this. I don’t see much of her these days, but when I
do see Sonja next I’ll try and have a quiet word with her about the way the
affiliation to us is used, but at the moment in fairness she is entitled to use
it in the way she does. Fortunately I don’t get to see many of these email
exchanges but I do occasionally hear about them or see them and frankly
am rarely convinced by what I read. But as with all academics, I’d want to
protect another academic’s freedom to be contrary and critical, even if I
personally believe she is probably wrong. I agree with you that it’d be better
for these exchanges to be conducted through the peer review process but

167
 these forms of e-communication are now part of the public debate and it’s
difficult to do much about it other than to defend your position in this and
other fora, or just ignore it as being, in your words, malicious.

Jones accepts defeat:

You are probably aware of this, but the journal Sonja edits is at the very
bottom of almost all climate scientists’ lists of journals to read. It is the
journal of choice of climate change skeptics and even here they don’t seem
to be bothering with journals at all recently.
I don’t think there is anything more you can do. I have vented my frustration
and have had a considered reply from you.
And lest it be thought that Haughton’s rightful defence of academic freedom is due to
his being a “skeptic”, his final reply dispels any doubt:
I know, I feel for you being in that position. If it’s any consolation we’ve
had it here for years, very pointed commentary at all external seminars
and elsewhere, always coming back to the same theme. 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 the “10:10 campaign” (cutting 10% of emissions in 2010)
and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it…. Every now and
then people say to me under their breath with some bemusement, “and
when Sonja finds out, how will you explain it to her…!”
Free to push environmental interests without ongoing critique?
Thank you, Climategate whistle-blower, for saving us from such a fate.

Online Resources
All Files (Note: 62 MB, zipped):
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/climategate/1/climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-
data.zip

Emails (browsable folder):

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/

Documents (browsable folder tree):

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/climategate/1/FOIA/documents/

168
 The Lavoisier Group Inc
The Lavoisier Group is named after the founder of modern chemistry, Antoine-Laurent
Lavoisier, who discovered oxygen, identified carbon dioxide as the product of combus-
tion of carbon in air, and who laid down the theoretical basis of modern chemistry. He
was also an ingenious experimenter and instrument-maker who insisted on the highest
possible accuracy when taking measurements. He was executed by the French Revolu-
tionary Government in 1794.

The Lavoisier Group was incorporated in April 2000. At that time, the founders were
concerned that the Australian Government might ratify the Kyoto Protocol without
proper understanding of the scientific claims on which it was based, or of the economic
implications of the decarbonisation regime which ratification would have required.

During the federal election campaign of 2007, ALP Leader Kevin Rudd campaigned
passionately on the need to manage “climate change”, and after winning the election he
went, as Prime Minister, to Bali to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Since then, he and ‘Climate
Change’ Minister Penny Wong, supported by the then Opposition Leader Malcolm Turn-
bull, strove indefatigably to get the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill through the
Parliament. It failed in the Senate twice, and now sits as a trigger for a double dissolution
election and possible passage through a joint sitting of both Houses.

At Copenhagen, in December 2009, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCC) held its most important meeting since the Kyoto Conference of November
1997. At this conference a successor Protocol to the Kyoto Protocol (which expires in
2012) was supposed to have been finalised.

The Copenhagen conference resulted in the humiliation of the European Union and its
allies (including Australia), and the recognition by the USA that the developing coun-
tries, notably China, India, Brazil and South Africa, were going to reject any attempt by
the West to curtail their rapid progress to the complete electrification of their countries.

Copenhagen was the point at which “Warmist” ideology was overwhelmingly rejected by
the developing world. In Australia, the debate over “climate change” has vanished from
sight, as it has in the USA. Nevertheless, the Warmists are striving to get it back on to
the political agenda.

The Lavoisier Group provides a network and a Website which enables Australians who
are concerned about this issue to keep abreast of developments here and overseas. Those
who sympathise with our aims, and wish to join, can apply for membership through the
Website: www.lavoisier.com.au

The Lavoisier Group’s Board comprises President Hugh Morgan AC; Vice-President Ian
Webber AO; Treasurer Harold The Lavoisier
Clough AO; BruceGroup
Kean AM; Bob Foster; Tom Bostock;
George Fox AM; Philip Wood; Peter Chew; and Secretary Ray Evans.
www.lavoisier.com.au