Tag Archives: Phil Jones

Climategate 2: What can we make of this?

I have been trawling through some more Climategate 2 emails, and came across a brief exchange (email o222 of 2005). I may be wrong, but I am not sure I have seen this one in the many discussion of the emails. As before, I have tidied up the email by removing symbols such as >>>, and any bold in the text is my emphasis.

cc: “Thomas C Peterson” <Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov>
date: Thu Jan  6 08:54:58 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: Fwd: Monthly CLIMATbulletins
to: “Parker, David (Met Office)” <david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk>, Neil Plummer <n.plummer@bom.gov.au>

Neil,

Just to reiterate David’s points, I’m hoping that IPCC will stick with 1961-90.The issue of confusing users/media with new anomalies from a
different base period is the key one in my mind. Arguments about the 1990s being better observed than the 1960s don’t hold too much water with me.

There is some discussion of going to 1981-2000 to help the modelling chapters. If we do this it will be a bit of a bodge as it will be hard to do things properly for the surface temp and precip as we’d lose loads of stations with long records that would then have incomplete normals. If we do we will likely achieve it by rezeroing series and maps in an ad hoc way.There won’t be any move by IPCC to go for 1971-2000, as it won’t  help with satellite series or the models.  1981-2000 helps with MSU series and the much better Reanalyses and also globally-complete SST. 20 years (1981-2000) isn’t 30 years, but the rationale for 30 years isn’t that compelling. The original argument was for 35 years around 1900 because Bruckner found 35 cycles in some west Russian lakes (hence periods like 1881-1915). This went to 30 as it easier to compute.

Personally I don’t want to change the base period till after I retire !

Cheers
Phil

At 09:22 05/01/2005, Parker, David (Met Office) wrote:

Neil,

There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of IPCC AR4 to stay with the 1961-1990 normals. This is partly because a change of normals confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to newer normals, so the impression of global warming will be muted. Also we may wish to wait till there are 30 years of satellite data, i.e until we can compute 1981-2010 normals, which will then be globally complete for some parameters like sea surface temperature.

Regards
David

On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 21:58, Neil Plummer wrote:

Hi Hama, Tom
(and David, Blair)

Re: the issue of using the 1971-2000 normals in CLIMAT rather than 1961-1990 normals.

Happy New Year!

I have copied the relevant text from CCl XIII below, which provides reasons for staying with the 1961-90 standard. My initial recommendation is the same as Tom’s, i.e. stay with the standard for now.

I think there are two main factors to consider here – capability and demand. While there are clearly advantages with widespread use of normals derived using the later period there must be the capacity to do so.Perhaps in the lead-up to CCl-XIV, OPAG 2 can find out the extent of the support for the change among users of CLIMAT and OPAG 1 can find out more about capabilities. (Note, however, that this is not strictly on issue for OPAG 1 according to the ToRs for the ICT and any of the ETs. Happy to assist though).

We may use the climate working groups in the Regional Associations to  assist with surveying members capabilities and could do the same regarding the demand question though I think Tom’s CCl/CLIVAR ET is best placed to give that guidance.

David, Blair – Interested in your thoughts on this matter.
Cheers
Neil

The email round commenced with a request for a clarification from the Turkish meteorological office on the . I will leave the technical points to other who have a better understanding of the issues that are being discussed. However, I was fascinated to see firstly that Phil Jones was putting confusing the media as a key concern. And then there is the worry of Parker that the impression of global warming would be muted! Note the use of the word ‘impression’. Does this sound like he is worrying about the science?

Again, here we have emails in their context, and the phrases in their full context, and two clear statements that the media and impressions are the priority over the science. Oh dear, oh dear….

Note: Two phrases which are highlighted, I will leave for others to consider who have the technical knowledge to do so.

Advertisements

Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review – Part II

This is a continuation of a narrative I am putting together from the climategate 2 emails, which shows how the ‘team’ (a group of famous climate scientitsts) get together to trash the good name and career of an editor of the academic journal Climate Research. The editor in question is Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The reason for their actions; he allowed the publication of a paper which contradicted the work of the team, and in particular published a paper which was supportive of the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. Michael Mann’s famous hockey stick chart saw this period disappear, and his ‘hockey stick’ chart was used by the IPCC as evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

Before reading this section, I strongly recommend that you start with the first post on the subject, which is here. In the first section, I detail how some of the most famous climate scientists plot to have Chris de Freitas, who allowed the contrary paper, sacked from his job. This post follows the story forwards.

As before, when quoting the emails, I do so minus annoying symbols such as >>>. Where I am commenting within the email text, I place the text as [this is my comments], and any bold text is my emphasis. For this post, I will mainly only quote parts of emails that directly refer to the team’s attempt to attack de Freitas.

In the previous post, I was up to email 1430, but had missed out a crucial email in which Phil Jones is supportive of action 3b and 3c suggested by Pittock to deal with the de Freitas problem (see previous post, email O332 ), which I will remind you of as follows:

(b) Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to refereeing and editing [nothing we disagree with goes into the journal]. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the journals, but that might leave them [them??? – people who disagree] even freer to promulgate misinformation. To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed [they want to determine who can and cannot edit a journal?] and proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.

(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies [this sounds like a call to smear anyone who disagrees] (if they are capable of being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable [as biased as they are???] lead reporter for Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors” [this is simply unreal], in line with current international practice? Or is that defamatory? [I would suggest that, yes, calling anyone who disagrees with you, or allows publication of dissenting views, would indeed be defamatory]

Phil Jones writes back to Pittock endorsing both of these actions as follows, in email o332,  on 17 April:

My earlier email reply to Neville gives the details of a paper already out there and two more planned. It is clear when these come out we have to be more active in gaining more widespread publicity for them (much more than we normally do). [it is clear here that they are, quite literally, activists] At the moment Ray’s extensive paper (with others) in the PAGES volume could be a starting point.

Mike Hulme is moving towards your 3b course of action and I’ll talk to Hans von Storch, who although he says he’s not the Chief Editor is thought of by many to be this de facto. 3c is possible through contacts we all have with editors at Science and Nature. I realise the issues with lobbying groups and I’m sure this has been discussed at the IPCC planning meeting in Marrakesh this week.

Let’s see how Mike gets on and my talks with Hans (and Tom Crowley) next week.

In this email, Phil Jones is clearly endorsing actions to use whatever means necessary to blacken the name of de Freitas. It is also possible to see that they see themselves as having influence at Science and Nature, and that they consider they can call on this influence to do a hatchet job. In the same email, Mann responds to Phil Jones as follows:

I’m going to try to get ahold of Dick Kerr today to see if I can get his interest in doing a story. My guess is that Dick will go for it. If so, I’d like to give him a list of names of people to contact for comments.

Richard (Dick) Kerr is a staff writer for Science magazine. I will jump ahead a little here, as it is appears that Mann succeeds. By 15th August, a story appears in Science magazine called ‘In the Eye of the Storm‘. This is an extract from the piece, and you will note how closely it follows the team’s objective:

It has been a hot summer for Hans von Storch. In June the German meteorologist was promoted to editor-in chief of Climate Research and asked to douse the controversy from the journal’s publication in January of a paper skeptical about global warming. But by the end of July he had thrown in the towel and resigned.

The paper that led to his rise and fall claimed that the 20th century was in fact cooler than a period in the late Middle Ages.Authored by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, it was based on a study partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute and widely quoted by politicians skeptical of global warming. The Bush Administration even referenced it in a recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency that critics said was altered to hew more closely to the party line.

But other climate researchers say the authors’ data was too limited to support their claims. “They could not draw those conclusions from the methods they used,” says Von Storch.

This was not the only piece that appeared in Science. The following paper is published:

Bradley, R. S., Hughes, M. K., & Diaz, H. F. (2003). Climate in Medieval time.(Climate Change). Science, 302(5644), 404(402).

It may come as no surpise to see that the paper rebuts the Soon & Baliunas (S&B) paper, the publication of which led to the team’s attack on de Freitas. This is the conclusion of the paper:

The balance of evidence does not point to a High Medieval period that was as warm as or warmer than the late 20th century. However, more climate records are required to explain the likely causes for climate variations over the last millennium and to fully understand natural climate variability, which will certainly accompany future anthropogenic effects on climate.

And, if looking at the references used in the paper, it contains references to three Mann papers, and offers this at the end:

We thank J. Hansen, J. Lean, M. Mann, and J. Salinger for comments. Support by the U.S. Department of Energy (R.S.B., H.F.D,), NSF Earth System History program (M.K.H.), and NOAA Earth System History program (R.S.S., M.K.H.).

And here is the rub. Apparently, according to Mann in email number 2469, the article was ‘a solicited piece’. It seems that the planned journalistic expose and the rebuttal all took place as planned. This should, at the very least, cause some concern about Science Magazine in this ugly business. Furthermore, for example, Bradley was on the distribution of many of the key emails plotting against de Freitas, including the one in which Wigley admits that the attack on de Freitas is ad hominem. Here we can see the extent of the team, and a cynical view might suggest that Richard Kerr is joining as a team member (he is later copied in on emails from other members of the team e.g. here).

I have digressed a little, as I wanted to follow up on some interesting points in the emails, and I continue the story at email 4132, of 28th April. This is Phil Jones to Mann:

Now had a chance to catch up a little.  On de Freitas I hope something is going to happen, but I don’t to say anything yet. Hans and Clare will write to the publishers and try to get the reviews from de Freitas. Hans is now convinced he should go, but wants to do on a due cause basis and by the book so any backlash can be dealt with in a fair manner.

From the previous post, you may remember that all along, the team wanted to know who had been responsible for the Soon & Baliunas (S&B) paper. It seems here that the pressure from the team is finally working with regards to Hans von Storch. Mann only makes one comment on this, which is below:

Re, DeFreitas–good to hear. That piece that Jim Salinger just forwarded is especially damning…Thanks for the message.

I am assuming that Mann is referring to the email, in which Salinger is proposing sending a letter with the clear intention of getting de Freitas sacked from University of Auckland. However, I cannot be sure from this snippet, as it may refer to the email below.The next email I have found comes quite a bit later, on 16 May, and is email 4808. (corrected 28 November, thanks Alex) MannPhil Jones is following up on the email of Mann Hulme, in which he proposes writing a letter to the other editors of Climate Resarch, asking for the editors to resign in protest at de Freitas being an editor.

Did anything ever come of this? [the email to the CR editors]

Clare Goodness was in touch w/ me indicating that she had discussed the matter w/ Von Storch, and that DeFrietas would be relieved of his position. However, I haven’t heard anything. A large segment of the community I’ve been in contact with feels that this event has already done its damage, allowing Baliunas and colleagues to  attempt to impact U.S. governmental policy, w/ this new weapon in hand–the appearance of a    legitimate peer-reviewed document challenging some core assertions of IPCC to wave in congress. They appear to be making some headway in using this to influence U.S. policy, which makes our original discussions all the more pressing now.

In this context, it seems important that either Clare and Von Storch take imminent action  on this, or else actions of the sort you had mentioned below should perhaps be strongly considered again. Non-action or slow action here could be extremely damaging.I’ll forward you some emails which will indicate the damage that the publication has already caused.

Thanks very much for all your help w/ this to date, and for anything additional you may be able to do in this regard to move this forward.

It seems that the pressure of the team is bearing fruit, and that they will achieve their aim of having de Freitas sacked as an editor. Also, the primary concern of Jones in this email is the impact of the S&B on policymakers. Other people researching other climategate emails have found the team openly referring to the ’cause’, and it is apparent that the big concern about the S&B paper is that it is damaging ‘the cause’.

You may have noted that Clare Goodess has been floating into view in some of the emails. As a backgrounder, she is a researcher at the CRU East Anglia, and is therefore a colleague of Phil Jones. She was also copied in on email 1051156418.txt in which Wigley admits that they are discussin an ad hominem attack on de Freitas, so must be aware of the role that she is about to play. This is email 4159, and the following is from Goodess to Mann on 19 May:

Hans and I have already raised this issue with Inter Research, but they havent taken  it up yet. Hans and I have have contacted de Freitas and InterResearch over the issues that you and others have raised before. One of the things de Freitas said in response, was that he had contacted the editor of Energy and Environment to see why it had been published. The editor told him that it deserved ‘a less interferedwith version’ , i.e., the original authors had complained about the  changes required by the CR reviewers!

Hans, InterResearch and I are still discussing what action needs to be taken and how to respond to de Freitas’ inititial responses. I will ensure that all those who have expressed concerns to me and/or Hans/Mike Hulme are informed of the outcome.

Notice here, that team members are being kept in the loop at all stages. In the normal world, even if accepting that there should be a review of the position of de Freitas, you would expect this kind of review to be confidential, as it directly relates to the reputation of an individual.The response from Mann is:

Thanks very much for the update, and for your efforts to do something about this. De Freitas’ argument seems to amount to “well the editor at ‘Energy and Environment’ was even worse than me”, and that doesn’t quite hold water.

As de Frietas apparently seeks to distance himself from culpability, please keep in mind that this is only one of  numerous past complaints of suspicious and apparently unethical behavior on his part in association with his position at “Climate Research”. I’m forwarding, under separate cover, an email describing a complaint from Danny Harvey and Tom Wigley.

I, as well as many other of our colleagues, look forward to hearing what happens here.

For this email alone, it might be reasonable for de Freitas to challenge Mann in court for libel. Mann is directly suggesting that de Freitas has behaved unethically in relation to his role at Climate Research. Meanwhile in email 2104, they are planning a new line of attack. On 22nd April, Harvey sends an email copying an email he, Wigley and Goodess write the following to de Freitas:

Dear Dr. de Freitas:

We have discovered that we were both reviewers of the paper Revised 21st century temperature projections by Michaels et al. recently  published in your journal (vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). In our reviews, we both judged the paper to be in category d (Publication not recommended) because of numerous flaws in the arguments, which we carefully documented.

We now see that the paper has been published almost without alteration from the original submission, except for a few added paragraphs that  either do not address or inadequately address the main objections that we raised. The revised manuscript was apparently not subjected to re- review at least not by us. We find this to be most unusual  even if the authors presented a counter-argument to each of our objections, it is the normal procedure among reputable journals for the authors reply to be forwarded to the original reviewers for further comment.

We note in this regard that even under the less damning evaluation category c (Revise and re-submit for additional review), responses and      revisions should be sent back to the original referees. Your decision that a paper judged totally unacceptable for publication should not      require re-review is unprecedented in our experience.

We therefore request that you forward to us copies of the authors responses to our criticisms, together with: (1) your reason for not sending these responses or the revised manuscript to us; (2) an explanation for your judgment that the revised paper should be published in the absence of our re-review; and (3) your reason for failing to follow accepted editorial procedures.

Yours truly,
Danny Harvey and Tom Wigley
Best wishes, Clare

In other words, a new line of attack has opened up. I have had several academic papers accepted for publication, including some that have strongly divided reviewers, but where the editor has come down upon my side and accepted the paper (and some with the opposite outcome). From this experience, it seems that their complaint is without any foundation, but I have never been a journal editor (although I have reviewed articles).

I’m afraid that, at this point, I will call it a day again. I have just had a comment on the original post on this subject from Steve McIntyre, and he has mentioned that he plans to follow this up. As this blog is only a minor one, and this is a major story, I will leave it to those that can give a better airing to finish the story. I only hope that the work I have done on this might help.

As a conclusion, I would just like to say that the de Freitas affair is, I believe, a very, very major story. In particular there is no question of ‘out of context’ or any of the other excuses that were wheeled out for climategate 1. They are absolutely explicit in their aims, and their endorsement of Salinger’s proposal to try to get de Freitas sacked. This is something that most people, even those who do not follow this subject, can grasp hold of.

In the meantime, I have every confidence that Steve will take this story forwards, and give it the reach it deserves . In particular, Steve’s good name has enough weight to carry the story into the mainstream media. I suspect that this might finally be enough for the ‘team’ to held accountable for their corruption of science. Let’s hope so.

As a final note, I will follow up this story with the New Zealand media, in particular when Steve’s version of events is published. In my original post, I have posted a copy of the email I sent to the New Zealand Herald, effectively challenging them to respond to the story. More of the same may be on the cards, time allowing.

Update: 28 November

I see that this post has been linked to on Real Climate in some comments on Climategate 2. This is the comment:

Any context on this thread – which might be interpreted to constitute a coordinated effort to have someone dismissed for not following the party line?

https://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-and-corruption-of-peer-review/

And the answer is given as follows:

[Response: The issue has nothing to do with not ‘following the party line’, but rather of being guilty of appalling editorial practices, whereby papers were published with claims that were not justified by the analysis, or that were accepted almost ‘as is’ regardless of the views of referees. Hans von Storch in email 2106: “For me it is important that we admit that the result of the review process of Soon & Baliunas was insufficient”, and noting the pattern “We should have been more vigilant after we had seen that actually two critical comments were written on the first Soon paper” (also handled by de Freitas). The corruption here was de Frietas, not anyone who responded. – gavin]

My response to ‘Gavin’. When reading the whole series of emails, and looking at the context of the whole, I think readers can make up their own minds. This is yet another attempt by the ‘team’ (Real Climate is their online support) to shift the direction, again smearing Chris de Freitas. Again, here again we have accusations of Chris de Freitas as ‘corrupt’. If I were Chris, I might be chatting with some lawyers right now.

Interestingly, I do not think I need to say more. I think the emails speak for themselves, except to say that  it is interesting to see how they will try to spin this. I saw (and responded to) a comment (awaiting moderation at time of writing) on Wattsupwiththat which was very similar to this, and said something similar to my comment here.

Update 1st December

I have noticed that the campaign against Chris de Freitas is being restarted, so I have written a post dedicated to the subject, which can be found here.

Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review

The post here is a follow-up from my last post on some Climategate 2 emails, which I have tied together into a kind of narrative. Why should you read this?It is very simple. There are plenty of articles, views etc. out there claiming that the climategate 2 emails are being taken out of context. I have also seen Phil Jones has been saying that it is just the normal ‘to and fro’ of normal scientists going about their business etc. etc.

This is most certainly not the case in the emails that follow. There really is no hiding place for the authors, and no ambiguity. The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of ‘scientists’ the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word.

Amongst those involved are Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Salinger, Tom Wigley, Barrie Pittock, Mike Hulme + others. In addition Pachauri, the head of the IPCC is copied into many of the emails, meaning that he was fully aware that some of the key scientists in the IPCC were effectively out of control.

The post is very long, but please stick with it. The story unfolds, and is worth the effort if you really want to see what is going on. When quoting the emails, I do so minus annoying symbols such as >>>. Where I am commenting within the email text, I place the text as [this is my comments] (update 28 November: I have changed the surrond to my comments to {my comment} as a couple of people seem to have confused my commentary for the original authors, & will do the same for the next post when I have time), and any bold text is my emphasis.

The starting point is email 2683, from 12 April 2003 when there is grumbling about a paper by Soon & Baliunas (S&B) published in the journal Climate Research (abreviated to CR in the emails). There is some discussion of the S&B study, and Mike Hulme discusses the potential of the paper on the thoughts of policymakers with Barrie Pittock:

Yes, this paper has hit the streets here also through the London Sunday Telegraph. Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are pretty annoyed, and there has been correspondence across the Atlantic with Tom Crowley and Ray Bradley. There has been some talk of a formal response but not sure where it has got to.  Phil and Keith are really the experts here so I would leave that to them. Your blow by blow account of what they have done prompts me again to consider my position with Climate Research, the journal for whom I remain a review editor.  So are people like Tim Carter, Nigel Arnell, Simon Shackley, Rob Wilby and Clare Goodess, colleagues whom I know well and who might also be horrified at this latest piece of primary school science that Chris de Freitas from New Zealand has let through (there are a good number of other examples in recent years and Wolfgang Cramer resigned from Climate Research 4 years ago because of it).

I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate.  Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal.

The first point to note is their concern is as much about the impact upon policy as it is about the science. This will become important for setting the context for the progressive process in which they eventually seek to destroy the career of the offending editor.We then get a response from Salinger, in response to Pittock’s call for someone to ‘take up the gauntlet’:

Dear Mike, Barrie, Neville et al

Saturday morning here and thanks for all your efforts.  I note the reference to Chris de Freitas.  Chris writes very voluminously to the NZ media and right wing business community often recycling the arguments of sceptics run overseas, which have been put to bed.

I, personally would support any of these actions you are proposing particularly if CR continues to publish dishonest or biased science. This introduces a new facet to the publication of science and we should maybe have a panel that ‘reviews the editors’.  Otherwise we have the development of shonkey editors who then manipulate the editing to get papers with specific views published.  Note the
immediacy that the right wing media (probably planned) used the opportunity!

Your views appreciated – but I can certainly provide a dossier on the writings of Chris in the media in New Zealand.

There are several points of note here. First of all, the positioning of de Freitas as being part of a right-wing, and there is even suggestion of a conspiracy. Finally, just to demonstrate that de Freitas is an ‘outsider’, Salinger will produce the evidence. Having a different view, it seems, is condemnation. Pittock then responds to Salinger:

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of ‘Climate Research’ can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr – the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.

‘Energy and Environment’ is another journal with low standards for sceptics, but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of stirring different points of view – the real test for both journals may be whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously with the sceptics’ papers so that readers are not deceived.

On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with. I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a reviewer.

Here we have our first indications that de Freitas may be about to face problems. Note that Pittock suggests that any hint of attacking de Freitas for contrarian views must be avoided. The whole phrasing of this seems almost to admit that this is exactly what they are doing. Note also that the implication is that anything that is published by skeptics must be of a low standard. It is a view of quite extraordinary arrogance. It is even more evident in the final bold statement; annoyance that a less alarmist paper gets through.

We now move onto email 2272, of 16th April. The thread of the email is a response to Pittock’s email, and Phil Jones kicks off with this:

There have been a number of emails on these two papers {probably Wigley’s paper}. They are bad. I’ll be seeing Hans von Storch next week and I’ll be telling him in person what a disservice he’s doing to the science and the status of Climate Research.

I’ve already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the journal. Tom Crowley may be writing something – find out also next week, but at the EGS last week Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do nothing. Papers that respond to work like this never get cited – a point I’m trying to get across to Hans. We all have better papers to write than waste our time responding to drivel like this.

Notice that the suggestion is that pressure will be put on the editor Hans van Storch. As will be seen, this is positively mild in comparison to what follows, but is nevertheless interference with the review system to keep out articles that do not support the ’cause’. Michael Mann then pitches in:

Phil relayed this message to me–this echos discussions that others of us here have had as well, and at Phil’s request, I’m forwarding some of these (Phil seems to have deleted them). I am encouraged at the prospect of some sort of action being taken.

The “Energy and Environment” piece is an ad hominem attack against the work of several of us, and could be legally actionable, though I don’t think its worth the effort. But more problematic, in my mind, is the “Climate Research” piece which is a real challenge to the integrity of the peer-review processes in our field.

I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from “Climate Research” is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken. A paper published there last year by a University of Virginia “colleague” of mine who shall remain nameless contained, to my amazement, an ad hominem attach against the climate modeling community, and the offending statement never should have seen the light of day (nor should have any of the several papers of his which have been published there in recent years, based on quality and honesty standards alone).

A formal statement of “loss of confidence” in the journal seems like an excellent idea. It may or may not be useful for me to be directly involved in this, given that I am a primary object of attack by these folks. However, I’m happy to help in any way that I can, and please keep me in the loop.

Notice that the entire tenor of the email is summed up in the last statement in bold. Mann is taking any criticism of his work as a personal affront that must be stopped. Anything which critiques his work must be stopped. The boycott of citing and publishing in a journal is a big deal, as journal success is determined by ‘impact factors’ which in turn are driven by citations. This is already bringing out the ‘heavy guns’, but still is nothing in comparison to what comes later. In the interim, Mike Hulme continues the interference with the independence of the journal (Update 27 November- I just noticed that there is a section commencing with [Wolfgang Kramer ….] in this case the […] were in the original, not my addition Update: 28th, as per update, my comments now in {…}):

Dear Co-Review Editor

You may or may not have seen/read the article by Soon and Baliunas (from the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysics Lab) in the Jan 31 2003 issue of CR (vol.23,2).  A variant of this analysis has just been published in the journal Energy and Environment.  The authors/editor made a big media campaign to publicise this work, claiming it showed clearly the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century and that the IPCC (and other) analysis claiming the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium was plain wrong.  In the UK, the Sunday Telegraph ran the story.

I have followed some email discussion about this amongst concerned paleoclimate experts here at UEA, in the USA and in Oz and NZ and their is overwhelming consensus {note this phrase carefully – the consensus of the ‘team’} that the Soon and Baliunas work is just crap science that should never be passed peer review (for a flavour see Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Barrie Pittock below).  These paleo-experts have decided it is not worth a formal scientific response since the story has not run that widely in the mass media (although is now used by sceptics of course to undermine good science) and that the science is so poor it is not worth a reply.

The CR editor concerned is Chris de Freitas and I have followed over the years papers in CR that he has been responsible for reviewing.  [Wolfgang Cramer resigned from CR a few years ago over a similar concern over the way de Freitas managed the peer review process for a manuscript Wolfgang reviewd].

Whilst we do not know who reviewed the Soon/Baliunas manuscript, there is sufficient evidence in my view to justify a “loss of confidence” in the peer review process operated by the journal and hence a mass resignation of review editors may be warranted.  This is by no means a one-off – I could do the analysis of de Freitas’s manuscripts if needbe.

I am contacting the seven of you since I know you well and believe you may also have similar concerns to me about the quality of climate change science and how that science is communicated to the public.  I would be interested in your views on this course of action – which was suggested in the first place my me, once I knew the strength of feeling amongst people like Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Tom Crowley, etc.  CSIRO and Tyndall communication managers would then think that a mass resignation would draw attention to the way such poor science gets into mainstream journals.

Of course, we would need to be sure of our case and to argue on grounds of poor conduct of peer review (I can forward a devastating critique of the Soon/Baliunas method from Barrie Pittock if you wish) rather than on disagreeable content of one manuscript.  CR does of course publish some good science, but the journal is not doing anyone a service by allowing crap science also to be published.

Now the most interesting point of note here is that the article in question refutes the infamous hockey stick chart developed by Mann, in which the Medieval Warm Period disappears. What we have here is Mann, and other members of the team trying to get the editors of a journal to discredit the entire journal, simply for publishing a paper which refutes his own [Mann’s] work! Note in this that the stakes are being raised again. Mann seeks to have the entire journal tarnished as a result of the publication of the offending papers. Note also his offer to re-review the manuscripts, which is disingenuous, to say the least (bearing in mind he is calling it crap). The aim appears to be to find out who did the review (which becomes quite and obsession, see earlier Pittock email). Finally, see how the consensus (highlighted) apparently trumps peer review! So the pressure is building against the journal…..

We are now onto email 3039 of 17 April. This is from the apparently mild mannered Phil Jones to Mike Hulme:

See the other emails I’ve sent today. Came in to do some work ! Keep me informed of the results and I’ll talk to Hans.  Nice try to shut Tim Lenton up – he’ll continue though !

Email O332 sees the approach to the de Freitas problem take a nasty turn. This is from Pittock to the rest of the ‘team’ and is very long so most commentary is in the text [comments in this format]. It is worth reproducing in full, as…well, you will see….:

I just want to throw in some thoughts re appropriate responses to all this – probably obvious to some of you, but clearly different from some views expressed. This is not solely a reply to Phil Jones, as I have read lots of other emails today including all those interesting ones from Michael Mann.

1. I completely understand the frustration by some at having to consider a reply to these nonsense papers, and I agree that such replies will not get cited much and may in fact draw attention to papers which deserve to be ignored.

2. However, ignoring them can be interpreted as not having an answer, and whether we ignore them or not, there are people and lobby groups which will push these papers as ‘refereed science’which WILL be persuasive to many small or large decision-makers who are NOT competent to make their own scientific judgements, {again, this is about policy, not about science} and some of whom wish the enhanced GH effect would turn out to be a myth. In our Australian backwater for example, such papers WILL/ARE being copied to business executives and politicians to bolster anti-FCCC decisions, and these people do matter {and goodness, wouldn’t it be terrible if they got an alternative picture of the science!}.There has to be a well-argued and authoritative response, at least for private circulation, and as a basis for advice to these decision-makers.

3. I see several possible courses of action that would be useful.

(a) Prepare a background briefing document for wide private circulation {why private???}, which refutes the claims and lists competent authorities who might be consulted for advice on this issue.

(b) Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to refereeing and editing {nothing we disagree with goes into the journal}. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the journals, but that might leave them {them??? – people who disagree} even freer to promulgate misinformation. To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed {they want to determine who can and cannot edit a journal?} and proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.

(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies {this sounds like a call to smear anyone who disagrees} (if they are capable of being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable {as biased as they are???} lead reporter for Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors” {this is simply unreal}, in line with current international practice? Or is that defamatory? {I would suggest that, yes, calling anyone who disagrees with you, or allows publication of dissenting views, would indeed be defamatory}

(d) Legal action might be useful for authors who consider themselves libelled, and there could be financial support for such actions (Jim Salinger might have contacts here). However, we would need to be very careful to be moderate and reasonable in our reponses to avoid counter legal actions.

4. I thoroughly agree that just entering in to a public slanging match with the offending authors (or editors for that matter) on a one-to-one basis is not the way to go {no we do not want debate in the literature, for example????}. We need some more concerted action.

5. One other thought is that it may be worthwhile for some authors to do a serious further study to bring out some statistical tests for the likelihood of numerous proxy records showing unprecedented synchronous warming in the last 30+ years. This could be, somewhat along the lines of the tests used in the studies of observed changes in biological and physical systems in the TAR WGII report(SPM figure 1 and related text in Chapter 19, and recent papers by Parmesan and Yohe (2003) and Root et al. (2003) in Nature 421, 37-42 and 57-60). Someone may already have this in hand. I am sure the evidence is even stronger than for the critters. That is of course what has already been done in fingerprinting the actualtemperature record. {well, here is a radical alternative – address the skeptical arguments with science – however, as will be seen, they choose path 3B rather than the science!}

We now come to email 3052, 23rd April. This is where it gets really, really nasty. For this reason, I have listed all of those who were a cc on the email, and who it was addressed to. The email is from Jim Salinger, then working for NIWA new Zealand, and I imagine you will be shocked:

cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, mmaccrac@comcast.net, tcrowley@duke.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu

To: Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, mann@virginia.edu, Phil Jones, harvey@geog.utoronto.ca, wigley@ucar.edu, n.nicholls@bom.gov.au

For information, De Freitas has finally put all his arguments together in a paper published in the Canadian Bulletin of Petroleum
Geology, 2002 (on holiday at the moment, and the reference is at  work!)

I have had thoughts also on a further course of action.  The present Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland, Professor John Hood (comes from an engineering background) is very concerned that Auckland should be seen as New Zealand’s premier research university, and one with an excellent reputation internationally.  He is concerned to the extent that he is monitoring the performance of ALL his senior staff, from Associate Professor upwards, including interviews with them.  My suggestion is that a band of you review editors write directly to Professor Hood with your concerns.  In it you should point out that you are all globally recognized top climate scientist.  It is best that such a letter come from outside NZ and is signed by more than one person.  His address is:

Professor John Hood
Vice Chancellor
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand

Let me know what you think!  See suggested text below.

Regards

Jim

Some suggested text below:

***************

We write to you as the editorial board(review editors??) of the leading international journal Climate Research for climate scientists
….
We are very concerned at the poor standards and personal biases shown by a member of your staff. …..

When we originally appointed … to the editorial board we were under the impression that they would carry out their duties in an objective manner as is expected of scientists world wide.  We were also given to understand that this person has been honoured with science communicator of the year award, several times by your … organisation.

Instead we have discovered that this person has been using his position to promote ‘fringe’ views of various groups with which they are associated around the world.  It perhaps would have been less disturbing if the ‘science’ that was being passed through the system was sound.  However, a recent incident has alerted us to the fact that poorly constructed and uncritical work has been allowed to enter the pages of the journal.  A recent example has caused outrage amongst leading climate scientists around the world and has resulted in the journal dismissing (??).. from the editorial board.

We bring this to your attention since we consider it brings the name of your university and New Zealand into some disrepute. We leave it to your discretion what use you make of this information.

The journal itself cannot be considered completely blameless in this situation and we clearly need to tighten some of our editorial processes; however, up until now we have relied on the honour and professionalism of our editors.  Sadly this incident has damaged our faith in some of our fellow scientists. Regrettably it will reflect on your institution as this person is a relatively senior staff member.

Yes, read it again. There can be no doubt that they are trying to get Chris de Freitas sacked from the University of Auckland. Re-read it if you have any doubts. When the team object to a person, they really, really object. And if that means seeking to destroy a reputation and career, so be it. If you look at Pittock’s email with the options for action, you can see the final option was to address critiques with science. Instead, the proposed course of action is to gang up on an individual, and trash their career and reputation.

Any ambiguity or lack of context here??

And it gets worse, as the action is approved of by other members of the team. Along the way, they also sometimes reveal more than their willingness to pursue a vendetta against de Freitas.

This is email 1051230500.txt, of 24th April. Tom Wigley tries to hide behind a fig leaf of science, but in the end hypocritically then agrees to sign the letter to tarnish de Freitas. I will  not quote all the email, as it is very long, and this post is now too long overall. Wigley does discuss using science to solve the problems along the way, but I will just focus on the parts that deal with the trashing of de Freitas. The email starts with this (note, the bit in […] on this occasion is the original author):

[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email  exchange — although they may be glad to have been missed]

I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea — although there are some unique things about this situation. Barrie says ….

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’

to which I add ….

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

(Update 27 November- this was in block quote, and is now clearly my text)It is very clear that Wigley is very uncomfortable about what is going on, and knows that he is in a conspiracy against an individual. The following discussion follows consideration of attempts to find out how Wigley had rejected papers in review, but which still had been published. He goes on to say:

This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review  process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).

The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.

The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through.

Note the points I have highlighted. People with bona fide scientific background should not review articles, as they might actually accept them for publication. Even if these scientist believe a paper is worthy of publication, apparently it is a bad publication. I do not think he had any idea of the implicit corruption of  peer reviewed science that is revealed in this exchange – but then again, look at the next part of Wigley’s email, and ask what this has to do with science?

Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is  clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.

If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.

In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).

In this, he acknowledges what is going on, as he does at the start of the email, but is willing to go along with it……despite recognising that it is wrong! The same email has the following from Salinger:

This will be the last from me for the moment and I believe we are all arriving at a consensus voiced by Tom, Barrie, Neville et al., from excellent discussions.

Firstly both Danny and Tom have complained to de Freitas about his editorial decision, which does not uphold the principles of good science.  Tom has shared the response. I would be curious to find out who the other four cited are – but a rebuttal would be excellent.

Ignoring bad science eventually reinforces the apparent ‘truth’ of that bad science in the public mind, if it is not corrected. As importantly, the ‘bad science’ published by CR is used by the  sceptics’ lobbies to ‘prove’ that there is no need for concern over climate change.  Since the IPCC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change,  is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily {agreeing with their views} peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications?  – and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do make their way through the peer review process?

I can understand the weariness which the ongoing sceptics’ onslaught would induce in anyone {because it is too much trouble to refute them?}, scientist or not.  But that’s no excuse for ignoring bad science.  It won’t go away, and the more we ignore it the more traction it will gain in the minds of the general public, and the UNFCCC negotiatorsIf science doesn’t uphold the purity of science, who will?

We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested some courses of action.  Over to you now in the north to assess the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and suggestions and arrive on a path ahead.  I am happy to be part of it.

Again, good science is the science that agrees with their own views. Bad science is to take an opposing view. ‘Purity of science’ is taken to mean ‘agreeing with my views’. Again, this is disturbing, but more disturbing is the moral righteousness that leads towards the comment that Salinger is happy to be part of it. The plot thickens in email 1430 of 28 April, when Phil Jones writes to Mike Hulme:

I’ve just talked to Clare about discussions I had with Hans last week in the US. I think he is now convinced about de Freitas and is drafting a letter with Clare to go to the publishers and to de Freitas. Basically trying to get the reviewer’s names etc and their reports in the first instance, with maybe sending some of the background emails to the publishers.

Also assessing copyright as the ‘other’ Soon/Baliunas paper in Energy and Env. is essentially the same as that in CR. Hans wanted to try this first, but didn’t want to tell all what he was doing. Fears a backlash if de Freitas gets removed without due cause.  So let’s all try and keep the emails down, and hope we can report something to all once the correspondence Hans initiates gets replies.

Here, they are trying to get de Freitas through other means, which is copyright violation. Give them credit; they are determined! Mike Hulme replies to say that he will add his weight to the campaig for removing de Freitas as editor, suggesting that he will carry more weight as an ex-editor.

At this point, I will end the story. There is plenty more material to piece together, but I have (again) run out of time and energy for this. As such, I will round up this very, very long post with a few comments.

The first point is that, despite the claims about taking emails out of context, it is 100% apparent that within the context here that the aim is to corrupt the review process, and exclude skeptical articles from publication. There is repetition throughout of a justification being ‘bad science’, but they mean work that is critical of their own work when they say this. The arrogance in this is astounding, and is only a fig leaf to protect their own work.

Also, in attacking de Freitas, it is apparent that Wigley knew that this was wrong, but he was willing to sign a letter to damage his reputation. Salinger uses the fig leaf of science as a prelude to his self-righteous comment that he is happy to be part of it.

There is no hiding place in here, and the emails that follow are just as bad. I have not looked at them all in detail but, as I have shown in the last post, other members of the team were fully onboard with the attack on de Freitas.

Just as importantly, Pachauri, the head of the IPCC is copied in on many of the emails, from some of his ‘leading scientists’, where it is 100% apparent that they are out of control. He does nothing.

This is all very tragic. I will, if I have time, try to finish the story, or others may want to take it forwards if they have the time or inclination. What I do know is that this particular case appears to be one of the most clear and damning I have yet seen with regards to the ‘team’ seeking to stifle debate, and ultimately destroy the scientific process. It is just all the more shocking for the tribalistic hounding of Chris de Freitas.

Update 28 November:

I have continued the story in a new post, and it is now partially complete. I have been informed by Steve McIntyre that he is planning to take the story forwards. As such, I end the new post at the point where I heard from Steve. I have stopped as Steve understands the background to the story better than me, and his blog has far, far greater reach. I am confident that he can do it justice. If you would like to see the next section of the story, it can be found here.

Climategate 2 and New Zealand

The world of skeptical blogging is abuzz, as a new tranche of apparently authentic emails are released in what is being dubbed Climategate 2, or Climategate 2.0. Steve McIntyre, of hockey stick debunking fame, has provided a link to a searchable database of the emails. I am briefly writing this introduction having just done a quick search of the emails with the term NIWA (the organisation responsible for the New Zealand temperature record), and have already dug up some correspondence between Jim Salinger, who was behind the junk science  New Zealand temperature reconstruction, and the so called ‘team’ of Michael Mann, Phil Jones et al. I used the filter for 2011 emails, and therefore assume they are new to the second batch released.

The correspondence relates to an attempt at a coordinated rebuttal of some of the work of Hans von Storch (see here for his Wikipedia entry).What the emails show is that Salinger is seeking to rebut the work of Chris de Freitas (see here for Wikipedia entry), and appears to be playing the role of an ‘activist’ (bold added by me):

date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:28:22 +1200
from: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate
to: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu>, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, mann@virginia.edu, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Dear All

Good to see some action – and I applaud your initiatives.  As a backgrounder I have attached various pieces that have been in the NZ Herald which have either involved Chris de Freitas – or are his
‘opinions’.  He publishes as ‘associate professor in geography’. The NZ Herald is NZ’s largest daily metropolitan newspaper.

These will show you exactly where he is coming from – and our attempts locally in New Zealand to rebut these.  Any actions you do that produce results would be greatly appreciated here, and I will ensure that the appropriate sources get to know!

Look forward to updates.

Regards to all

Jim

Note the implication that Salinger has a cozy relationship with the media at the end (highlighted in bold). Some highlights of the the initiative that is being applauded are copied below, but you really need to read the whole thing to see just how unpleasant it must be to be on the wrong side of the ‘team’, of which Salinger appears to be a key player.

From Phil Jones of the CRU:

There have been a number of emails on these two papers. They are bad.I’ll be seeing Hans von Storch next week and I’ll be telling him in person what a disservice he’s doing to the science and the status of Climate Research.
I’ve already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the journal. Tom Crowley may be writing something – find out also next week, but at the EGS last week Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do nothing.Papers that respond to work like this never get cited – a point I’m trying to get across to Hans.
We all have better papers to write than waste our time responding to drivel like this.

This is an extract of proposed responses from Barry Pittock of CSIRO in Australia:

3. I see several possible courses of action that would be useful.(a) Prepare a background briefing document for wide private circulation, which refutes the claims and lists competent authorities who might be consulted for advice on this issue. (b)Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation. To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and proper processes in
place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors. (c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors”, in line with current international practice? Or is that defamatory? (d) Legal action might be useful for authors who consider themselves libelled, and there could be financial support for such actions (Jim Salinger might have contacts here). However, we would need to be very careful to be moderate and reasonable in our reponses to avoid counter legal actions.

I have to pause to comment on this. How ugly is this? Does this have anything to do with science? It just looks like a gang of bullies ganging up on someone who does not agree with them. Then we have Phil Jones again, and he explains that they are already taking the action suggested by Pittock (in bold):

Dear Barrie,
My earlier email reply to Neville gives the details of a paper already out there and two more planned. It is clear when these come out we have to be more active in gaining more widespread publicity for them (much more than we normally do). At the moment Ray’s extensive paper (with others) in the PAGES volume could be a starting point. Mike Hulme is moving towards your 3b course of action and I’ll talk to Hans von Storch, who although he says he’s not the Chief Editor is thought of by many to be this de facto.3c is possible through contacts we all have with editors at  Science and Nature. I realise the issues with lobbying groups and I’m sure this has been discussed at the IPCC planning meeting in Marrakesh this week. Let’s see how Mike gets on and my talks with Hans (and Tom Crowley)next week.Have a good Easter break – yesterday was the warmest April day for many locations in England since records began, the long daily ones (1890s).

I am just filled with disgust at all of this. This is not science but a playground full of bullies. I am completely at a loss for words.

Just as an afterthought, below is an email from Jim Salinger regarding the New Zealand temperature reconstruction, which may be of interest to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition:

cc: palmer@lincoln.ac.nz, p.jones@uea.ac.uk
date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:42:54 +1200 (NZST)
from: j.salinger@niwa.cri.nz (Jim Salinger)
subject: Collaboration on N Z Tree Ring work
to: druidrd@lamont.ldgo.columbia.edu, ricardo@ldgo.columbia.edu, drdendro@ldgo.columbia.edu

Dear Rosanne

Jonathon has shared your message of collaboration.  We would be delighted to collaborate with you, Ricardo and Ed  on tree-ring work in this part of
the world.  As you will be aware from e-mails between yourselves, Phil Jones and us, we have been pushing forward in producing new chronologies
and clean climatological time series.

We think the co-operative and collaborative way is an excellent wayto make progress.  By this, we mean true collaboration, where information is shared, data processing together, and joint publications making the approach a partnership.  By this means, we can add all our own specialised input into the process, and produce a better result!

We would welcome collaboration  as outlined above – would you please
confirm whether you would be comfortable with working in this way.

Now – over the past few years Jonathon, his Ph D student and myself have
produced a series of new chronologies which we have matched with climate
data.  We have been quite selective in the sites for either extension of
old chronologies, or new ones, simply because of the climatic complexity of
the country.  We have gone for sites which maximise the climatic gradients
– whether these are westerly/easterly differences for pressure gradients,
or temperature signals.  You will have some appreciation of this from your
Stewart Island work, and Ricardo will recognise this from his familiarity
with Argentina.  I have also been quite selective in the appropriate
climate data for use with these series.  These have been screened and
homogenised.

This year I will be working on collection of older MSLP data from the area
(including most of the South Pacific) and homogenising it.  Some of the NZ
MSLP data pre 1930 is very poor, and requires refining dramatically.  We
would favour an approach where Jonathon can give the input on tree-ring
data and I can give the input and provide the climate data, and we all be
involved with the results, as appropriate.  Jonathon and I are both aware
of the bugs in the data, and the complexities of the New Zealand situation.

A copy of the appropriate parts of your NSF proposal would be most useful,
which we could give you constructive comments, if necessary, to strengthen
it.  We would be more than happy to be named collaborators on the proposal.

Please let us know whether this is acceptable with you.

Warm wishes and please say hello to Ed.

Jim  Salinger

I will leave it here for a moment. I am just horrified at what I am reading. It is simply shocking to read the emails of the team in the raw. And Salinger, part of the team applauds this, and was responsible for the original temperature record for New Zealand.

I will try to trawl through some more later. However, disgust leaves me pausing for a while.