Section 5.5 Responses

5. It is alleged that there have been improper attempts to influence the peer review system and a violation of IPCC procedures in attempting to prevent the publication of opposing ideas. It is alleged that there has been an attempt to subvert the peer review process and exclude publication of scientific articles that do not support the Jones-Mann position on global climate change. A paper by Soon & Balunias was published in the Journal Climate Research arguing that the 20th century was abnormally warm.An email from Professor Michael Mann on 11th March 2003 contained the following: “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.”  The  allegation is that journals might be pressured to reject submitted articles that do not support a particular view of climate change. In an email to a fellow researcher in June 2003, Briffa wrote: “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting (an unnamed paper) to support Dave Stahle‟s and really as soon as you can.” In an email to Mann on 8th July 2004, Jones wrote: “The other paper by MM is just garbage. […] 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!” The allegation is of an attempt to prevent ideas being published and the author being prepared to subvert the peer review process for a journal and to undermine the IPCC principle of accounting properly for contradictory views. 

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS 

 5. What is the justification for an apparent attempt to exclude contrary views from the IPCC process?

13 Responses to “Section 5.5 Responses”

  1. Jimchip Says:

    1128000000 29 Sep 2005 Osborn to Jones, Long email re: McIntyre obtaining manuscript for D’Arrigo’s JGR paper and as a reviewer for IPCC.

    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 PDF of a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleo chapter and
    then apparently trying to interfere with the editorial process that
    the paper is currently going through at JGR.

    I think this is an abuse of McIntyre’s position as an IPCC reviewer.

    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?

    Osborn quoted to Rob Wilson and Rosanne D’Arrigo

    >>Dear Rob and Rosanne
    >I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as 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, and I would hope that the
    >editor would respond appropriately. But the other comments could
    >clearly influence the editorial/review process and this is very
    >unfair when your paper has already been reviewed by
    >others…
    >McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper
    >was published if he wished to criticize certain aspects, and that is
    >the route he should have followed. He tried to stop publication of
    >a paper that I was a co-author on, Rutherford et al. (2005), by
    >contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms –
    >fortunately the editor told him firmly that the route to take was to
    >submit a comment after publication. However, in our case the paper
    >was already in press. In your case, with the editor’s decision
    >still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to
    >influence the decision in your case – and this certainly should not happen.

    Dr. Wilson is quoted:
    >>In some respects, I don’t mind having to address his comments (many
    >>of which are already adequately explained I think, although a
    >>detailed list of all data used could certainly go in an
    >>appendix), but this just seems a bit off. After all, we have
    >>addressed the reviewers comments and are currently awaiting a
    >>decision. This e-mail may effect the decision greatly.

    1141849134 ?

  2. jimchip Says:

    Also related to 1.1 and 5.1, from realclimate, presumably Mann:

    http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/1/20/7194/94155/67#c67

    “3. There are several more papers “in the mill” which we are not at liberty to discuss right now, which insure that the weight of peer-reviewed studies available for consideration in the next IPCC report will point towards a strengthening, not a weakening, of the IPCC ’01 conclusions regarding the anomalous nature of recent hemispheric and global warmth in a long-term context.”

  3. jimchip Says:

    1175952951.txt see also 2.2

    From: Jonathan Overpeck
    To: Stefan Rahmstorf

    Hi Stefan – Valerie was the lead on the Holocene section, so I’ll cc
    her. I agree that your approach is the smart one – it’s easy to show
    proxy records (e.g., speleothems) from a few sites that suggest
    greater warmth than present at times in the past, but our assessment
    was that there wasn’t a period of GLOBAL warmth comparable to
    present. We used the term likely

    >Dear Peck and IPCC coauthors,
    >
    >- I know it’s Easter, but I’m having to deal with Augusto Mangini, a
    >German colleague who has just written an article calling the IPCC
    >paleo chapter “wrong”, claiming it has been warmer in the Holocene
    >than now, and stalagmites show much larger temperature variations
    >than tree rings but IPCC ignores them. What should I answer?
    >
    >One of my points is that IPCC shows all published large-scale proxy
    >reconstructions but there simply is none using stalagmites – so
    >please tell me if this is true?!! My main point will be the local
    >vs hemispheric issue, saying that Mangini only provides local
    >examples, while the IPCC statement is about hemispheric or global
    >averages.

  4. jimchip Says:

    From: Keith Briffa
    To: mann@psu.edu
    Subject: Re: quick note on TAR
    Date: Sun Apr 29 19:53:16 2007

    Mike
    your words are a real boost to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done – often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these
    kind words . I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same…

  5. jimchip Says:

    1106338806.txt Not directly IPCC but they’re all inter-related:
    Tom,
    I hope the VTT panel doesn’t prove a meeting too many
    at this time. It is currently scheduled for Feb 23-25 and
    I only get back from an 8 day workshop in Pune on
    Feb 20.
    The IPCC Chapter with Kevin is now with WGI in
    Boulder. We did put you down as one of our
    potential reviewers. Don’t know whether you’ll
    have time or whether WGI will select you –
    regional balance etc.

    then the application wrt contrary views:

    From: Phil Jones

    To: Tom Wigley
    Subject: Re: FOIA
    Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
    Cc: Ben Santer

    Let me fill you in a bit (confidentially). You probably know the panel
    members. We were concerned that the chair would be a strong person.
    It is Jerry Mahlman — about the best possible choice. Richard Smith
    is the statistician — also excellent. Dave Randall, too — very good.
    As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen — but at least he is a smart
    guy and he does listen. He may raise his paper with Gianitsis that
    purports to show low climate sensitivity from volcanoes. I will
    attach our paper that proves otherwise, in press in JGR.
    Preparing the report has been a good and bad experience. I think
    I had the worst task with the Exec. Summ. — it tied up most of
    my time for the past 3 months. The good has been the positive
    interactions between most of the people — a really excellent bunch.
    I have been very impressed by Carl Mears and John Lanzante.
    At meetings, John Christy has been quite good — and there were
    good and positive interactions between John and Roy and the RSS
    gang that helped clarify a lot. Outside the meeting, in the email world,
    he has been more of a pain. He has made a lot of useful suggestions
    for the ExSumm — but he keeps accusing the AOGCMers of
    faking their models (not quite as bluntly as this). In the emails there
    are some very useful exchanges from Jerry Meehl, Ramaswamy and
    Ben detailing the AOGCM development process. We will be
    writing a BAMS article on this in the summer — much of what happens
    in model development is unknown to the rest of the community. The
    ‘faking’ idea prompted me to write a tongue in cheek note — also
    attached. As far as I know, John will not raise this particular issue
    in his dissentin views.
    To accommodate dissenting views, the report will have a “dissenters’
    appendix”, with responses. You will get this at some stage — the
    deadline for dissenters to produce is Jan 31, and we will not finish
    our rebuttals until mid Feb. The dissenters are John C, and (far worse)
    Roger Pielke Sr. All of the rest of us disagree with these persons’
    dissenting views. Roger has been extremely difficult — but the details
    are too complex to put in an email. On the other hand he has made
    a number of useful contributions to the ExSumm and other chapters.
    Suffice to say that he has some strange ideas (often to do with the
    effects of landuse change) that are interesting but still, in my view,
    speculative — but testable.
    We have yet to see the dissents — and it would not be ethical for
    me to say any more than I have already.
    Best wishes,

  6. jimchip Says:

    1199984805.txt

    From: Ben Santer
    To: Phil Jones

    Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: John Christy’s latest ideas]
    Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:06:45 -0800

    >> Phil Jones wrote:
    >>> Ben,
    >>> I’ll give up on trying to catch him on the road to Damascus –
    >>> he’s beyond redemption.
    >>> Glad to see that someone’s rejected something he’s written.
    >>> Jim Hack’s good, so I’m confident he won’t be fooled.
    >>> Cheers
    >>> Phil

    >>>> From: Ben Santer
    >>>> Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov
    >>>> Organization: LLNL
    >>>> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529)
    >>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
    >>>> To: “Hack, James J.”
    >>>> Subject: Re: John Christy’s latest ideas
    >>>> References:
    >>>>
    >>>> In-Reply-To:
    >>>>
    >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
    >>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    >>>>
    >>>> Dear Jim,
    >>>>
    >>>> I’m well aware of this paper, and am currently preparing a reply
    >>>> (together with many others who were involved in the first CCSP
    >>>> report). To put it bluntly, the Douglass paper is a piece of
    >>>> worthless garbage…

    >>>>> Dear Ben,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Happy New Year. Hope all is well. I was wondering if you’re
    >>>>> familiar with the attached paper? I thought that you had recently
    >>>>> published something that concludes something quite different. Is
    >>>>> that right? If yes, could you forward me a copy? And, any
    >>>>> comments are also welcome.
    >>>>> He’s coming to ORNL next week to under the premise that he has some
    >>>>> unique ways to validate climate models (this time with regard to
    >>>>> the lower thermodynamic structure). I’d be happy to chat with you
    >>>>> about this as well if you would like. I’m appending what I know to
    >>>>> the bottom of this note.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Best regards …
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Jim
    >>>>>
    >>>>> James J. Hack Director, National Center for Computational Sciences
    >>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory

  7. jimchip Says:

    1051156418.txt From Wigley, “My Turn” Esp. IPCC ref,

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

    From: Tom Wigley
    Subject: My turn
    Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:38 -0600

    Dear friends,

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

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

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

    to which I add ….

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

    ____________________

    Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
    and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more
    than a direct
    and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us
    was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
    poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
    we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was
    more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
    detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
    original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
    bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

    Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
    paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did
    in the above example — then this is an advantage.

    _____________________________

    There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
    Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
    personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
    the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
    basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
    with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
    Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
    this?

    _______________________________

    There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
    involved in writing a response.

    The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
    10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
    J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
    rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have
    been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
    reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
    my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

    The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
    (vol. 23, pp. 1–9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
    should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
    responded saying …..

    The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three
    referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
    published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
    to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
    referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
    publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.

    On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who
    advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
    the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.

    It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper —
    deFreitas has offered us this possibility.

    ______________________________

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

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

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

    _______________________________

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

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

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

    ______________________________

    Best wishes to all,
    Tom.

    To: Tom Wigley , Phil Jones

    , Mike Hulme , Keith Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby , “Michael E. Mann” , Tom Karl , Steve Schneider , Tom Crowley , jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter” , “p.martens”

    , “peter.whetton” , “c.goodess” , “a.minns” , Wolfgang Cramer , “j.salinger” , “simon.torok” , Mark Eakin , Scott Rutherford , Neville Nicholls , Ray Bradley , Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , “pachauri@teri.res.in” , “Greg.Ayers”

  8. jimchip Says:

    Wigley “My turn” responses:

    1051202354.txt

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: mark.eakin@noaa.gov
    Subject: Re: My turn
    Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0400

    HI Mark,

    Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don’t wish to receive
    these correspondances…

    Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the
    offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as
    he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments
    from other individuals as well–I’m not sure. I believe that the matter is
    in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any
    case, I’d be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.

    I think that a response to “Climate Research” is not a good idea. Phil and
    I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would
    tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don’t view as having passed
    peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review
    articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz
    (Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at
    least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and
    co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well…

    cheers,

    mike

    p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original
    distribution list.

    At 09:27 AM 4/24/03 -0600, Mark Eakin wrote:
    >At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
    >paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and
    >appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be
    >best to direct such a response. Some options are:
    >
    >1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
    >2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
    >3) A letter to OSTP
    >
    >The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the
    >current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and
    >Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is
    >not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would
    >probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention
    >to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a
    >widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for
    >Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the
    >best published approach.
    >
    >A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has
    >shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured,
    >critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’ methods. I agree with
    >Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as
    >Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a
    >letter. Many others of us could sign on in support.
    >This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide
    >the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss
    >this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be
    >developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.
    >
    >I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am
    >rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Mark
    >
    >
    >
    >Michael E. Mann wrote:
    >
    >>Dear Tom et al,
    >>
    >>Thanks for comments–I see we’ve built up an impressive distribution list
    >>here!
    >>
    >>This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in
    >>large, I agree w/ Tom’s comments (and those of Barrie’s as well). A
    >>number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the
    >>past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process
    >>in this area (both with regard to empirical “climate reconstruction” and
    >>in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection
    >>studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous
    >>email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley’s Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and
    >>I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of
    >>Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the
    >>myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate
    >>change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm
    >>Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece
    >>for /Science/ on the “Medieval Warm Period”.
    >>Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a
    >>scientific point of view, they are awful–that is certainly true. For
    >>example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard
    >>they applied for finding “a Medieval Warm Period” was that a particular
    >>proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period AD 800-1300
    >>that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the “20th
    >>century” (many of the proxy records don’t really even resolve the late
    >>20th century!) could be used to define an “MWP” anywhere one might like
    >>to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a
    >>”MWP” that was “warmer than the 20th century” (a non-sequitur even from
    >>their awful paper!) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who
    >>contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious
    >>and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words
    >>don’t make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it
    >>weren’t the case that they’ve gotten the (Bush) White House Office of
    >>Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave
    >>Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this
    >>appropriately, but without some external pressure).
    >>
    >>So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these
    >>folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting
    >>the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC.
    >>Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other
    >>approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as
    >>Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics
    >>which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a
    >>compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific
    >>disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise
    >>of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of
    >>the “Harvard” moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media
    >>never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by
    >>Murdoch and his crowd, 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 CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
    >>
    >>This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science
    >>we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by
    >>Tom and Danny Harvey and I’m sure there is much more) that a legitimate
    >>peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular
    >>editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different
    >>nature–there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/
    >>appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted
    >>there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the
    >>chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers,
    >>perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn’t see the light of the
    >>day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip
    >>through the cracks at e.g. GRL–there is probably little that can be done
    >>here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate
    >>scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
    >>
    >>best regards,
    >>
    >>Mike
    >>
    >>At 11:53 PM 4/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
    >>
    >>>Dear friends,
    >>>
    >>>[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
    >>>exchange — although they may be glad to have been missed]
    >>>
    >>>I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea — although there are some
    >>>unique things about this situation. Barrie says ….
    >>>
    >>>(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
    >>>(2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’
    >>>
    >>>to which I add ….
    >>>
    >>>(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
    >>>
    >>>____________________
    >>>
    >>>Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates
    >>>and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more
    >>>than a direct
    >>>and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us
    >>>was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was
    >>>poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later)
    >>>we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was
    >>>more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on
    >>>detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the
    >>>original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more
    >>>bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
    >>>
    >>>Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
    >>>paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did
    >>>in the above example — then this is an advantage.
    >>>
    >>>_____________________________
    >>>
    >>>There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
    >>>Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
    >>>personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of
    >>>the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the
    >>>basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons
    >>>with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley,
    >>>Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on
    >>>this?
    >>>
    >>>_______________________________
    >>>
    >>>There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
    >>>involved in writing a response.
    >>>
    >>>The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
    >>>10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for
    >>>J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended
    >>>rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have
    >>>been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
    >>>reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless,
    >>>my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.
    >>>
    >>>The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research
    >>>(vol. 23, pp. 19, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it
    >>>should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he
    >>>responded saying …..
    >>>
    >>>The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three
    >>>referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
    >>>published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
    >>>to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
    >>>referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
    >>>publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
    >>>
    >>>On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who
    >>>advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in
    >>>the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
    >>>
    >>>It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper —
    >>>deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
    >>>
    >>>______________________________
    >>>
    >>>This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
    >>>deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
    >>>skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
    >>>How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
    >>>individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
    >>>an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get
    >>>through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
    >>>Soon, and so on).
    >>>
    >>>The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
    >>>difficult.
    >>>
    >>>The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that
    >>>does get through.
    >>>
    >>>_______________________________
    >>>
    >>>Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
    >>>giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
    >>>hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
    >>>
    >>>If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
    >>>to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
    >>>
    >>>In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
    >>>disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’
    >>>PhD is at the same level).
    >>>
    >>>______________________________
    >>>
    >>>Best wishes to all,
    >>>Tom.
    >>
    >>______________________________________________________________
    >> Professor Michael E. Mann
    >> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
    >> University of Virginia
    >> Charlottesville, VA 22903

    Cc: Tom Wigley , Phil Jones

    , Mike Hulme , Keith Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby , Tom Karl , Steve Schneider , Tom Crowley , jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter” , “p.martens”

    , “peter.whetton” , “c.goodess” , “a.minns” , Wolfgang Cramer , “j.salinger” , “simon.torok” , Scott Rutherford , Neville Nicholls , Ray Bradley , Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , “pachauri@teri.res.in” , “Greg.Ayers” , wuebbles@atmos.uiuc.edu, christopher.d.miller@noaa.gov, mann@virginia.edu

    >>_________________________________________________________
    >C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
    >Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
    >Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
    >
    >NOAA/National Climatic Data Center

  9. jimchip Says:

    1051230500.txt

    From: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
    Subject: And again from the south!
    Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:28:20 +1200

    Dear friends and colleagues

    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 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, 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 negotiators. If 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.

    Warm wishes to all

    Jim

    On 23 Apr 2003, at 23:53, Tom Wigley wrote:

    > Dear friends,
    >
    > [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email
    > exchange — although they may be glad to have been missed]
    >
    > I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea — although there are some
    > unique things about this situation. Barrie says ….
    >
    > (1) There are lots of bad papers out there
    > (2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’
    >
    > to which I add ….
    >
    > (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.
    >
    > ____________________
    >
    > Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by
    > Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was
    > nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by
    > Santer and me — yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We
    > complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the
    > editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRL 27,
    > 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was more that just a rebuttal,
    > it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things
    > this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis
    > paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric
    > ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).
    >
    > Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original
    > paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did
    > in the above example — then this is an advantage.
    >
    > _____________________________
    >
    > There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut.
    > Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair
    > personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation
    > of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On
    > the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by
    > persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa,
    > Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend
    > time on this?
    >
    > _______________________________
    >
    > There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be
    > involved in writing a response.
    >
    > The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16,
    > 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper
    > for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees
    > recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow
    > it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net.
    > I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than chance.
    > Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a
    > response is necessary.
    >
    > The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate
    > Research (vol. 23, pp. 1–9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this
    > and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas
    > again!) and he responded saying …..
    >
    > The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three
    > referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be
    > published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person
    > to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other
    > referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for
    > publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
    >
    > On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees
    > who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been
    > kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
    >
    > It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper
    > — deFreitas has offered us this possibility.
    >
    > ______________________________
    >
    > This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
    > deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
    > skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other
    > occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number
    > of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used
    > by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can
    > get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen,
    > Baliunas, Soon, and so on).
    >
    > The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
    > difficult.
    >
    > The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science
    > that does get through.
    >
    > _______________________________
    >
    > Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is
    > clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage
    > of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
    >
    > If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be
    > willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
    >
    > In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
    > disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat
    > Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).
    >
    > ______________________________
    >
    > Best wishes to all,
    > Tom.
    >

    *********************************************************
    Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ
    NIWA
    P O Box 109 695
    Newmarket, Auckland
    New Zealand

    To: Tom Wigley , Phil Jones

    , Mike Hulme , Keith Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby , “Michael E. Mann” , Tom Karl , Steve Schneider , Tom Crowley , jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter” , “p.martens”

    , “peter.whetton” , “c.goodess” , “a.minns” , Wolfgang Cramer , “j.salinger” , “simon.torok” , Mark Eakin , Scott Rutherford , Neville Nicholls , Ray Bradley , Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , “pachauri@teri.res.in” , “Greg.Ayers” , Tom Wigley

  10. jimchip Says:

    1056654269.txt Hulme re Pachy: Mike, this message below is fresh-in from RK Pachauri. He seems keen, and we
    have been given a direct contact at TERI. He has made a few interesting
    suggestions on content, though nothing on funding as of yet.

    :
    From: Mike Hulme
    To: “Asher Minns”
    Subject: Re: From Prof. Pachauri
    Date: Thu Jun 26 15:04:29 2003

    Asher,
    Spoke with Sinclair-Wilson from Earthscan yesterday about this and we agreed one or two
    things. We should take next steps on this after the Assembly business has died down.
    Mike
    At 07:51 19/06/2003 +0100, you wrote:

    Mike, this message below id fresh-in from RK Pachauri. He seems keen, and we
    have been given a direct contact at TERI. He has made a few interesting
    suggestions on content, though nothing on funding as of yet.
    Asher
    ——————————
    Mr Asher Minns
    Communication Manager
    Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
    [1]www.tyndall.ac.uk
    Mob: 07880 547 843
    Tel: +44 0 1603 593906
    —– Original Message —–
    From: “R K Pachauri”
    To:
    Cc: “Ulka Kelkar”
    Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:34 AM
    Subject: Dear Prof. Hulme
    Dear Prof. Hulme,
    Thank you for your letter proposing that the Tyndall Centre and TERI jointly
    produce a series of yearbooks on climate change. May I congratulate you on
    this excellent idea! I am convinced that a market exists for precisely such
    a publication, and am delighted that you thought of TERI as a partner in
    this venture.
    I am putting down some initial thoughts on the proposed publication and the
    suggested contents that you had sent.
    While there is a lot of information and related data available on climate
    change, it is scattered. On the one hand we have the IPCC assessment on the
    state of knowledge about climate change, and on the other the WMO’s annual
    bulletins. Similarly, the UNFCCC compiles GHG inventory information from
    periodically submitted National Communications, while the IEA presents
    annual fuel combustion emission statistics. In such a scenario, the metier
    of our Yearbook would be to synthesise the current knowledge on climate
    change. As mentioned in your note, it would present this information in a
    clear and visually appealing manner. Moreover, it would go into climate
    change issues in more detail than say, the annual World Resources brought
    out by WRI.
    The Foreword – and perhaps an Emerging Issues section at the end of the
    book – could comment on scientific and political issues, which are otherwise
    not discussed in either the IPCC Reports or in the types of publications
    mentioned above.
    In the draft table of contents, there are two sections that are slightly
    different in character from the others. In the chapter on national policies,
    we may choose between alternative structures:
    1 By Annex I country
    2 By type of policy/instrument (e.g. CDM, international trading regimes,
    taxation, etc)
    The proposed chapter on Social Change and Adaptation is important to
    complete the set of topics/issues covered in the Yearbook, but is probably
    the most complex in terms of scope/structure. One option that we could
    discuss is to cover adaptation policies not in chapter 7, but in chapter 9,
    and to highlight studies of community and local government level
    implementation.
    With such a scope, the media would also be an important part of the audience
    for this yearbook
    I do appreciate that producing this Yearbook would involve significant
    commitment in terms of time and effort if all relevant literature is to be
    reviewed. However, by teaming up authors from our two organisations, I am
    confident that we will provide an impartial yet balanced North-South
    perspective to the Yearbook. For specialised subjects, like the chapter on
    business, we may even think of invited chapters, by say the WBCSD.
    You may also be interested to know that TERI also brings out a yearbook
    focusing on India, called the TERI Energy Directory, Database, and Yearbook
    (TEDDY). This publication has a readership of 15000-20000, reaching out to
    government, corporates, individual researchers, and libraries in India and
    overseas.
    These are just some initial thoughts, and my colleagues can be in touch with
    your team to develop this outline further. Ms Ulka Kelkar
    (ulkak@teri.res.in) will coordinate this effort on behalf of TERI.
    We look forward to working with you on this Yearbook.
    With kind regards,
    Yours sincerely,
    R.K. Pachauri

    References

    1. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

  11. Jimchip Says:

    see https://crutapeletters.wordpress.com/section-1-responses/section-1-7-response/#comment-244 for mention of IPCC considerations re EOS and S&B.

  12. Jimchip Says:

    1084017554.txt Hulme to Dai

    From: f037
    To: Aiguo Dai
    Subject: denial or delusion? … Aiguo’s response
    Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 07:59:14 +0100
    Cc: , , , ,

    Dear Aiguo,

    You’ve done a great job in putting this together so quickly and clearly. I
    have a couple of additional comments to make on it, but can’t do so until
    Tuesday. You (we?) might also like to think of the reply being
    multi-authored, including Phil, Pete, Kevin, Joe and myself.

    I must say that when I first read this paper a couple of weeks ago I wrote it
    off as so bad (so, so bad) that it didn’t even deserve a response. To pretend
    that the Sahel drought didn’t happen (i.e., a pure artifact of wrongful use of
    rainfall data) is the most astounding assertion, almost on a par with
    holocaust denial. Try putting that proposition to the millions of inhabitants
    of the Sahel in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, many of whom died as a direct
    consequence and whose livelihoods were devastated. Adrian Chappell may never
    have visited the region, but I know Clive Agnew has (many times) – and he
    should know better. I did my PhD research in the region in the early 1980s
    and I know exactly what the rainfall conditions were like and how much
    oridinary people suffered as a consequence. My PhD was on rainfall
    variability and local water supplies in Sudan and I visited and talked to many
    villagers in the region.

    Anyway, Phil first suggested that a corrective reply was needed and I can see
    the value of doing so, especially with IPCC AR4 approaching. It just seems to
    me such a shame that such poor science is being done by some people – in this
    case I don’t think there is a deeper motive on the part of Chappell and Agnew
    than pure delusion and incompetence – and, worse, that a journal like IJC will
    publish it.

    Thanks again for your efforts,

    Mike

    >===== Original Message From Aiguo Dai =====
    >Dear All,
    >
    >Soon after I sent out my last email, I quickly realized that there is
    >another fundamental error in their rainfall model eq.(1): the regional
    >station numbers na and nb should be replaced with regional areas. This
    >can be seen clearly in the following example: suppose region a has only
    >one station whose long-term mean rainfall happens to be the same as
    >region a’s mean, and region b has 100 stations. Then their model would
    >give the completely wrong estimate of rainfall for region (a+b), while
    >the area-weighted version would still work. This is an obvious error, but
    >it apparently could be easily overlooked. Their model seems to be
    >originated from their incorrect perception that regional rainfall has
    >been traditionally derived using the simple arithmetic mean of all station
    >data. After reading the leader author’s response to Joe’s comments, I
    >could not believe that they still think previous analyses are simpler than
    >theirs!
    >
    >I also forgot to point out in my earlier draft the fact that even if their
    >modelled time series were a reasonable proxy of Sahel rainfall, their
    >results would still have had little implications to previous analyses of
    >Sahel rainfall. This is because their analysis maximized the effects of
    >changing station networks by the design of their model and by choosing
    >the boundary of the two sub-Sahel region at 6deg.W, whereas in most previous
    >analyses these effects were minimized by area-weighted averaging (Jones and
    >Hulme, 1996).
    >
    >Sorry for the overlook of these issues in my earlier email.
    >
    >Regards,
    >
    >–Aiguo Dai
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> Dear All,
    >>
    >> I was asked by Kevin to work out a rebuttal to Chappell and Agnew
    >> (2004). After reading
    >> it a couple of times, I found the main reason why they came to their
    >> results: they devised a
    >> Sahel rainfall model (eq. 1) with a necessary condition that the
    >> constants a and b
    >> represent the mean rainfall for the west and east part of the Sahel.
    >> However, later in their
    >> paper, they estimated a and b by a non-linear least-squares fitting to
    >> observed rainfall
    >> data, and their a (=973mm) and b (=142mm) are nowhere near the actural
    >> mean rainfall
    >> for these sub-Sahel regions (~645.5 mm and 471.2mm). In essense, their
    >> rainfall model
    >> and thus their modelled rainfall time series are no longer relevant to
    >> Sahel rainfall!
    >>
    >> I have seen many bad papers, but this one is the worst of all, not only
    >> because they
    >> misled the reader with their model (intentionally or unintentionally),
    >> but also because they
    >> made all kinds of unfounded pure speculations about the implications of
    >> their results.
    >>
    >> I did some quick analyses using data extracted from the update GHVN2 and
    >> wrote a
    >> comment paper, which is attached as Word file. Any comments will be
    >> appreciated.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Aiguo
    >>
    >> Phil Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Dear All,
    >>> Several emails today. Kevin’s encouraging Aiguo Dai to write a
    >>> response as well,
    >>> so it might be worth some co-ordination. 2 responses might be better
    >>> than one, though, so I’ll
    >>> leave it up to you.
    >>> They have dug themselves into a bigger hole in their response to
    >>> Joe. Joe’s assessment
    >>> of their reasoning is exactly right. Also you can’t write a paper
    >>> saying an analysis is flawed and
    >>> then say we don’t dispute the local evidence for drought ! This is
    >>> naive in the extreme and
    >>> dumb. I’ve heard this excuse several times in the past with other
    >>> contentious papers.
    >>> The one problem there might be in a response is getting a quick
    >>> turnaround with IJC.
    >>> With the response a strongly worded letter should go to the editor
    >>> (Glenn McGregor)
    >>> requesting a fast-track review. The journal does this. As Kevin says
    >>> any response short
    >>> be short and to the point.
    >>>
    >>> Cheers
    >>> Phil
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> At 18:17 06/05/2004 -0400, Joseph M. Prospero wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> From: “A.Chappell”
    >>>> To: “Joseph M. Prospero”
    >>>> Cc: “Clive Agnew”
    >>>> Subject: Re: Sahel drought “artifact”
    >>>> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:13:48 +0100
    >>>>
    >>>> Dear Professor Prospero,
    >>>>
    >>>> Thank you for your email. I read your paper with interest. It does
    >>>> indeed show a strong correlation with conventional estimates of mean
    >>>> annual rainfall. However, the paper implicitly assumes that the
    >>>> mean annual rainfall represents the variation in rainfall for the
    >>>> entire region. Our paper shows that those statistics are flawed
    >>>> because of the changing station networks and that those regional
    >>>> statistics do not show a ‘drought’ in the Sahel. Our paper does not
    >>>> dispute the local scale evidence for drought.
    >>>>
    >>>> It is too simplistic to average mean monthly rainfall for such a
    >>>> large heterogenous region and believe that the rainfall trend is
    >>>> precise. What might be interesting is to correlate your results
    >>>> against the mean annual rainfall corrected for the changing station
    >>>> networks.
    >>>>
    >>>> Regards,
    >>>>
    >>>> Adrian

  13. Jimchip Says:

    Silence of the Lambs Oct 15, 2008

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/

    In March last year, I was intrigued by the following statement in the then recent IPCC Summary for Policymakers which stated:

    “Studies since the TAR draw increased confidence from additional data showing coherent behaviour across multiple indicators in different parts of the world”

    What exactly was the “additional data” since the TAR? At the time, AR4 had not been published. Even now, if you re-visit chapter 6, there is negligible support for this statement. Yes, AR4 lists many Team multiproxy studies, but, for the most part, these regurgitate pre-TAR data. Note that Mann et al 2008 will be of no help in this respect as it almost entirely relies on pre-TAR data as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: