Re: [asa] Hadley files stolen and published on the internet...

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Fri Nov 20 2009 - 16:01:13 EST

Hi John,

This is really quite interesting and it should make for some interesting discussions not only on global warming itself, but on issues of scientific method (and/or lack thereof!)

Personally, I wouldn't jump immediately to the conclusion that that the e-mails show global warming to be a conspiracy/hoax/swindle. Indeed, I wouldn't even conclude that the Hadley guys have acted improperly - let alone that they have acted dishonestly.

After all, we already know that advocates on both sides of the debate have to try to make sense of a welter of quite complex data. In which case I make very little of the fact that the Hadley guys (or anybody else) have engaged in selective presentation of data. Indeed, I would have expected that they had, and the revelations in that respect come as no surprise.

The real question is, as always, whether the selectivity in question is justified - and to answer that question, one needs to go back to reasons which lie behind it. I'm sure the Hadley guys will have a story to tell - on which people will make up their own minds.

On that score, it's probably worth making a comment about Andrew Bolt, who happens to be a very well-known staff columnist on social and political issues for one of the two major daily papers in the city where I live.

On social/political matters Bolt's leaning is avowedly right wing. And while nobody should conceive of him a mindless right-wing apologist of the Janice Matchett sort, he is invariably critical of left-wing political and social policy in general and of the environmental lobby in particular. Yet, as I say, he isn't mindless - he is generally able to put up a quite cogent argument for his views, and as such he is regularly sought out to give a well-informed opinion with a conservative slant.

For current purposes, the important thing to be aware of is that he is nowhere near a neutral in the global warming debate and has, over a number of years now, offered regular denunciations of global warming theories in his press columns.

The relevance of this is pretty simple: I personally think the Hadley e-mails still leave quite a bit of room for interpretation - and it's pretty obvious where in the spectrum of possible interpretations Bolt is going to come down. Be assured that he will - as is his custom - speak in very decisive terms about the subject at hand. But nobody should be fooled by the certainty of Bolt's pronouncements into believing that there is only one possible reading of a situation.

This doesn't mean that he is necessarily wrong in his reading of the Hadley e-mails. Only that his position was well and truly set long before they came to light, and that his is not a self-critical or sympathetic reading of the data - by which I mean he is unlikely to give the Hadley people the benefit of the doubt but rather to read their comments in the most negative terms. For Bolt these e-mails will be ammunition to be fired rather than data to be analysed.


John Walley wrote:
> Wow. This story seems to be a real shocker.
> The Herald Sun in Oz is reporting on their blog that a bunch of
> confidential emails have been hacked (stolen) from Hadley Climate
> Reseach Center and some of them are not that flattering. Below are
> some excerpts that are floating around. Also here is a link where you
> can dl all 69M of the original files.
> John
> Herald Sun
> Files:
> From: Phil Jones
> To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
> Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
> Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn <mailto:k.briffa@XXX.osborn>@XXXX
> Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
> Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
> first thing tomorrow.
> I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
> 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
> land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH
> land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate
> for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate
> for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
> Thanks for the comments, Ray.
> Cheers
> Phil
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich
> .
> From: Kevin Trenberth
> To: Michael Mann
> Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
> Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D.
> Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin
> Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
> Hi all
> 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. We had 4 inches of
> snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F,
> and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low
> was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record
> low.
> This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
> canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
> weather).
> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
> tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental
> Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF]
> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
> ***
> 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 CERES data published
> in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
> more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
> inadequate.***
> From: Tom Wigley
> To: Phil Jones
> Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
> We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has
> been twice the ocean warming ­ and skeptics might claim that this
> proves that urban warming is real and important.
> See attached note.
> Comments?
> Tom
> From: Phil Jones
> To: “Michael E. Mann”
> Subject: IPCC & FOI
> Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family
> crisis.
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his
> new email address.
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
> Cheers
> Phil
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit
> From: Phil Jones
> To: <>
> Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
> Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
> From: Timo H‰meranta
> To:
> Subject: John L. Daly dead
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
> Importance: Normal
> Mike,
> In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC
> paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is
> standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and
> codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
> Cheers
> Phil
> “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 (daly@XXXX)
> “
> Reported with great sadness
> At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
> thanks David - lets see what others think. I agree, that we don’t
> want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that
> all the TAR said was “likely” the warmest in the last 1000 years.
> Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is
> unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years.
> But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not
> have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete
> that second sentence.
> any other thoughts team?
> 0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
> 1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
> 0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
> 0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent
> years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
> 0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
> 1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
> 1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
> 1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
> 0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
> 0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
> 0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
> 0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
> 0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get
> “distinguishable results”
> 0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of
> published science but production of results”
> 1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
> 1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
> 1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small
> difference” (factor 1.29)
> 1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
> 1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different
> proxy combinations
> 1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so
> that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4
> Options appear to be:
> Send them the data
> Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries
> who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and
> also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some
> other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could
> extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes
> in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we
> coded up in the 1980s.
> Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How
> could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees
> with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy
> them.
> From: “Michael E. Mann”
> To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
> Subject: update
> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
> Cc: Gavin Schmidt
> guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue,
> so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty
> McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website
> (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).
> Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any
> way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful
> about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to
> answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other
> hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself.
> We can hold
> comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you
> think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any
> comments you’d like us to include.
> You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as
> a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
> forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use
> our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
> comments as a megaphone…
> “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!""Yes, I am aware of the
> confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even
> messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!)
> from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your
> email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don’t see how this was ever
> accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I’d rather you didn’t. I
> think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew
> Conrie’semail that says the paper has been rejected by all 3
> reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated
> version of that which appeared in CR.Obviously, under no
> circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.Cheers""we are
> having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions -
> being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still
> getting the crux of the information across clearly.”
> From: Tom Wigley [...]
> To: Phil Jones [...]
> Subject: 1940s
> Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
> Cc: Ben Santer [...]
> Phil,
> Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the
> 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see
> that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
> So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this
> would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to
> explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 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 (via either some common
> forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).
> When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times
> (roughly) the ocean blips­higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia
> effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so
> you can see where I am coming from.
> Removing ENSO does not affect this.
> It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we
> are still left with “why the blip”.
> Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect
> (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get
> continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH­just as one
> would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
> The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC)
> that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most
> 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this
> may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger
> later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming
> larger than the SH (which it currently is not)­but not really enough.
> So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
> (SH/NH data also attached.)
> This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate
> any comments you (and Ben) might have.
> Tom.
> The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas
> 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. K and I will keep them
> out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
> literature is !
> > After asking Anjuli I can confirm that government employees
> cannot receive funding besides travel reimbursement. So for those of
> you that are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, the only thing that remains to do
> is to go through the document once again, make sure your work (past
> and future) is not misrepresented, and then send me a note with an
> “OK” or your new comments, specifying that you are a government
> employee (please don’t let me guess it).
> For those of you that are ACADEMICS WITH 12 MONTHS SALARY all that
> we can budget is a small amount of consulting fees, up to 2 weeks’
> worth.
> If you belong to this category please respond saying that you are or
> you are not interested. If you are, then include in the document at
> the end in the place already arranged for it a statement of work
> referring to specific tasks as they stand in Section 3 of the
> narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email for specific
> instructions).
> For THOSE OF YOU THAT CAN GET FULL SUPPORT, please say if you want
> it or > not, and if you do, then do as I requested above: include in
> the document at the end in the place already rranged for it a
> statement of work referring to specific tasks as they stand in
> Section 3 of the narrative, and a bio-sketch (see end of this email
> for specific instructions).

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 20 16:01:46 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 20 2009 - 16:01:46 EST