This is absolutely stunning.
We have to think back to all the people who told us over the years that the IPCC is a “scientific organization” . This particular email has some huge implications in it which you really have to read a few times before you can close your jaw. I’ll bold some of the really shocking bits at the top but the rest is for you to work out.
If nothing else, read the first paragraph and try and wrap your head around -first, the concept and second, the beating down of others reasonable points. F…ing amazing.
From: Dave S
To: Shrikant J
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working
with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic. They are
scenarios-internally consistent (or so we thought) what-if storylines.
You are in fact out of line to assume that these are in some sense
realistic-this is in direct contradiction to the guidance on scenarios
provided by the synthesis team.
If you want to do ‘realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are, as they are
ultimatley a political decision (except in the sense that reserves and
resources provide an upper bound).‘Advice’ will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.Dave
On Sun, 16
May 1999, Shrikant [snip] wrote:> Friends,
>
> I’m enjoying the current debate about CO2 levels. I feel that we are using
> the GCM scenarios, and we MUST use exactly those CO2 levels for crop model
> runs, so all data is consistent. So if we are wrong, we are uniformly wrong
> and adjust our explanations accordingly whenever we agree on things. Now to
> use different data will be hard to explain.
>
>
> Shrikant
>
> Dr. Shrikant
Email number 0926947295.txt. I think I misinterpreted this partially, the implications are simply based around how reasonable a scenario was decided to be presented. i.e. how much CO2 is presented determines how warm it will be in the future and what disaster scenarios they could present. It mostly has to do with beating down of a junior member on in his view of a reasonable level of CO2 increase.
the Air Vent 
Jeff,
Is the “synthesis Team” the “TEAM?”
Reading the chain of emails, two things stand out. Firstly, the scientists are colluding to get the answer thay want. Secondly, they don’t appear to know what they are doing or what numbers to use. Obviously no quality control here. They just want to get the answer for the politicians, regardless of its validity (which seems to zero). I don’t think I should have used the label “scientists” for these people. They aren’t doing science – they are doing politics.
The journalists are waiting for the lobbyists/think tanks to tell them what to say. They don’t want to cut off the green revenue stream.
“If you want to do ‘realistic CO2 effects studies, you must do sensitivity
analyses bracketing possible trajectories. We do not and cannot not and
must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are …”
Perhaps I misread this, but it seems to imnply that we cannot do sensitivity analyses at all, as they must bracket trajectories that cannot be determined. (except by political decisions)
So politics determines what we will prove?
The “F” word seems inadequate.
Jeff—as a non-mainstream reporter who has worked in the area of medical-research fraud and disease-statistic fraud, I can tell you that mainstream reporters and their editors are just as reluctant to take on big medical lies as they are to take on climate-change lies. Even when the lies are blasted apart by others (co2 is a political issue email), there is silence. The agenda involved in both the climate-change and medical arenas has to do with, among other factors, massive bureaucratic control of science and the regulation of populations’ actions. Bringing nations to the brink of bankruptcy is another common feature. No room here to go into details, but any dissident and truthful campaign has a vital PR element, and should be looked at from that angle, as in: what can we do along multiple fronts to mount and extend factual PR against “the machine?”
I don’t understand. The email seems to be demanding that the IPCC *doesn’t* dabble in politics, and doesn’t offer too consistent a message because that would lead policy makers to think it was more certain than it was. I’d like to agree with you, but I’m struggling here.
We already knew they were projections, not predictions.
Jeff I see nothing controversial about that e-mail. Of course the amount of CO2 is a political decision.
They are talking about building the SRES scenarios to be used in the models. They need to have specific amounts for various GHGs so the models can refer to a common baseline.
It seems the leaker also thought this was significant. What is the issue here?
Stevo, It’s corruption of the scientific process. Science should determine the outcome, the outcome should not determine the science. That’s what makes the IPCC projections so strange. The IPCC doesn’t even have the courage to make a real prediction that could at least be tested by time. Yet based on the over-reaching weak statement by the IPCC, we’re supposed to make massive sacrifices.
Sorry, this email is still evidence of the scam. Whether or not C02 being handled as a political decision, everyone is being told that decision is based on sound scientific study. It isn’t.
While there is glaring evidence of collusion elsewhere, this particular email exchange seems to be pretty innocent. In regards to:
“We do not and cannot not and must not prejudge what realistic CO2 trajectories are…”
Here he’s simply saying that it’s not up to the scientists to determine how much fossil fuel we will likely burn in coming decades, and he’s right. It’s up to the politicians and those who are able to vote for them.
And in this snippet:
“‘Advice’ will be based on a mix of different approaches that must reflect
the fact that we do not have high coinfidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate ystem model projections of consequences.”
He is being forthright about the uncertainty inherent in their projections.
Although some of the most prominent climatologists are activist thugs, I believe that many of their colleagues are decent scientists who try not to stray outside of their areas of expertise. It’s the IPCC bureaucrats who twist their message of, “There’s a lot we still don’t know, but this is what could happen.” Into, “The world is coming to an end!”
I read these leaked e-mails with great interest and outrage.
However, I think that these particular excerpts are no reason for outrage at all. I think you misread them. In the first excerpt, the person basically says that CO2 emission trajectories cannot be predicted over a century, and that one should not be fooled into thinking that these scenarios are realistic. That is the only scientific position to adopt about these scenarios, IMO.
When he says that CO2 emissions are ultimately a political decision, he just means that they depend on what legislations will future governments pass and what kind of treaties they will abide by. And of course, resources provide an upper bound. That is true! What’s the problem? No collusion or misbehavior here.
You guys seem to be right on the political decision but what about the realistic scenarios? The guy came down pretty hard on the junior member for trying to present realistic information.
#7 The issue is about building political policy around unclear and controversial data, and unsettled science. Worse still, the science may well be ‘bought’ science in that someone is getting exactly what they have paid for i.e. pseudoscience.
I am going to have to pay for what these guys are saying in their emails, so they owe me a duty of both care and accuracy.
As someone who is required to occasionally create mathematical models of computer systems I can see no scenario for a ‘non-realistic’ model except for that of ‘story-telling’. Perhaps that is what ‘science’ at cash strapped Universities has come to.
As a quantitative-empirically oriented political scientist I can’t say much about these climate models, but it seems to me that there is an unfortunate general tendency to manipulate models (be they agent-based simulations, statistical models or game theoretical ones) in science to get good results. And as only good results seem to be publishable (even though in a Popperian manner we should rather stick to publishing bad results, but try to tell an editor of a journal something like that…) as a scientist you do what one of my former advisors called “data massage”, i.e. getting the most out of bad data. I know there is a discussion between fallibilists aka Popperians and followers vs. conventionalists aka Milton Friedman and followers about the use of models in general. And if any of these scientists involved are conventionalists, than they will tell you “well we know these models are wrong. But as long as they predict things nicely, why should we not make use of them?”.
What is troubling with scientific models, at least in my humble opinion, is their frequent use without ever really digging into the mud of their assumptions. They’re all most of the time taken as given, with a massive abuse of “ceteris paribus” assumptions. But what are we ever to expect from a model that can predict things well but is surely wrong in it’s assumptions? That looks like confusing scientific knowledge with esoteric scientific wisdom.
As the wise Yoda once said: “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.” Maybe Science should look into what was and what is instead of making itself absurd with a new kind of superstition by trying to create a crystal ball. Or it should make its assumptions much more explicit. If it is simply about probabilistic models and their results, we should inform politicians and the society in general about probabilities.
To end with Yoda, “Careful you must be when sensing the future, [Anakin]. The fear of loss is a path to the dark side.”
I updated the end of the post accordingly.
Reading the emails, it seems clear that the junior scientists are being coerced to tote the party line. One of the emails from Briffa shows that he “needs” a reason to reject a paper. A case of obvious co-ercion, and corruption of the review process. Reference here.
I did a quick search on the subject line to see the original email and found this related one –
0927145311:
Found this (don’t know relevancy) :
From: Keith Briffa
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
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<——. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties . Much had to be removed and I was particularly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan. I am happy to pass the mantle on to someone else next
time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or substantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment , having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise , again instead of actually doing some useful
research ! Anyway thanks again Mike…. really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes
Keith
Keith
At 18:14 29/04/2007, you wrote:
Keith, just a quick note to let you know I've had a chance to read over the key bits on last millennium in the final version of the chapter, and I think you did a great job. obviously, this was one of the most (if not the most) contentious areas in the entire
report, and you found a way to (in my view) convey the the science accurately, but in a way that I believe will be immune to criticisms of bias or neglect–you dealt w/ all of the controversies, but in a very even-handed and fair way. bravo! I hope you have an opportunity to relax a bit now. looking forward to buying you a beer next time we have an opportunity 🙂
mike
Jeff,
Here is the story as told by Yves Lenoir in Climate of Panic, 2001:
In fact they used an oceanic circulation model to calculate the period of CO2… It was a diffusion model where ocean was… not moving!!! Yet the bottom could exchange with atmosphere… The model could not reproduce C14 distribution military or natural and it had to be completed by photosynthesis estimates. Yet the IPCC took that model for GWP of CO2… (U. Siegenthaler, JGR Vol. 88 N6 April 1983..).
NEXT, a team for the Max Planck Institute created models of oceanic circulation and tried to simulate the carbon cycle. The curve of excess CO2 elimination was approached by a sum of 5 exponential decreasing functions of time. Many time constants (and periods) had to be adjusted… one had to be of infinite value! Therefore according to that model an anthropogenic CO2 molecule was staying forever in the atmosphere… This mathematical conclusion made it impossible to devise a culpability scale for GHGs since regardless of weighting, one part of the emission staying forever… quite a problem for group II and III of IPCC that needed to rank GHGs in order to establish the carbon trade market. Maier-Reimer Hasselmann climate dynamic, 2, 1987.
NEXT the NRDC a Washington based environmental lobby ONG solved the problem by offering a usable GWP. They used a high number to replace the infinite by a big number: they chose 1000y. A complete mathematical non sense allowed them to adjust at 232 y the period of CO2, a double of the Siegenthaler period. Lashof Ahuja Nature vol344 1990. The 1990 IPCC quoted both studies and chose 120 y as the period for CO2.
NEXT of course this led to debate and the Shepperton 1992 IPCC meeting… because 2 studies, one by Lenoir and one by a NY university and Environmental Defense Fund group (BC O Neill et al. EDF the atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic CO2, preprint communicated by SR Gaffin 24july 1992) used a linear model with one period that allowed them to fit historical curves and CO2 concentration since 1850. Although applied on different portion of the record the studies yielded coherent results. The periods found were 43-52 y and 23 to 44 y respectively. Quite a difference with the 120 y… meaning CO2 is eliminated much faster than IPCC says… Yet IPCC kept the GWP as is because charging the CO2 as the main culprit was necessary to implement their carbon trade: it was a political tool to rank GHGs using CO2 as the ref. gas, despite obvious physical non sense resulting from this artificial classification. The GWP business assumed the climatic system is linear but the same people are always fearmongering with a non linear, tipping point scarecrow tactics…
So in conclusion groups II and III, the policy arm of IPCC that needed to come up with a enforceable policy influenced the Group I the science group: in order to make the Carbon market work, they forced the group I to come up with a false approximation that led to a convenient overestimated GWP of CO2…
Attempts to hide the mediveal warm period (for the umpthieth time)?
Addendum to my post 19:
To be clear, my posty is only a summary and my translation of the Lenoir book but it gives the gist of it.
Lenoir Yves, 2001, Climat de Panique, Favre editeur pages 158-162
A model can either predict a phenomenon that can be tested for and observed right now, or it can predict phenomena we must wait for. Climate change models and their projections obviously fall into the latter class. Therefore, climate-model authors can gain some breathing room. It becomes vital to be able to know what assumptions they are making in creating their models, and how they are using those assumptions to build their structures. Some of these model-authors are just hunkered down inside their work and don’t want to know about political consequences. But then there are heavy hitters who run with the uncertain predictions of the models and tell us the world is ending unless we return to the forest and scratch for tubers and roots.
Model A:
On what assumptions is it based, and how reliable are those assumptions?
How strong or weak is the logic of the argument, all the way along the line, to the conclusions?
Are there errors in calculations (1 plus 1 equals 3)?
What data are being plugged into the model to arrive at the conclusions, and how reliable are these data?
Are data being used and collated and clustered in unacceptable, misleading ways?
This would be a direct (and time-consuming) approach to analysing a given model.
“we do not have high co[n]infidence in GHG projections nor full
confidence in climate [s]ystem model projections of consequences”
Actually, I think the most incriminating bit is in the last part of this sentence. The only repeat only “proof” that global warming (if any) is man-made is that they (say they) can’t make climate models which “work” unless they assume that man-made CO2 is driving the model’s output temperatures. They also tell us (ad nauseam) that the science is “settled”. And yet here they are saying that they don’t have full confidence in their model projections (for a given GHG level).
Science is defined by the ability to understand a system sufficiently to make correct predictions with confidence. If they don’t have full confidence in their predictions, then by definition either they don’t have confidence in their understanding or else they are dealing with an inherently unpredictable system. Either way the science is not “settled” and the “proof” becomes wishful thinking on their part.
Time to contact your congressional delegation. You can locate their contact information here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Sent this e-mail to mine:
By now you must be aware of the release of thousands of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University by what is probably a conscience-stricken insider. The e-mails to and from some of the leading researchers in the field and key players in the IPCC, document attempts to manipulate scientific data, control the scientific review process, subvert FOI officers, destroy materials that should have been preserved under FOI regulations to avoid release, and the use misleading and deceptive information to influence both the public at large and policy makers.
It is imperative that you get out in front of this issue and take the lead in calling for a congressional inquiry. So far, there has been muted reaction from the press, but you can find interesting articles here:
Andrew Revkin, New York Times
Keith Johnson, Wall Street Journal
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/
The British Blogger Bishop Hill has an easy-to-read summary of major issues here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
The Blogger Anthony Watts describes the on-going events here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
Jeff Id, whose The Air Vent blog was the site where the whistle-blower first announced the release of the files on a server in Russia, has a number of posts.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
It is worth noting that Jeff was away on a hunting trip at the time and got back to find a bomb shell sitting on his blog. He removed it, but it had already been discovered by a number of readers.
The actual e-mails and documents can be found here, among other places:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/search.php
This issue needs to be thoroughly aired in a Congressional Investigation before our nation damages its economy, security and liberty any further.
Sincerely,
Judging from some of the comments I have been seeing around the ‘net, there appears to be some confusion about “synthetic” data sets. It is my understanding that the “synthetic” data are data that are derived from such things as IR soundings from satellites and not from actual thermometer readings. So UAH would be “synthetic data” in the context of CRUT. Not that it is all that pertinent in this particular thread, but reading though the various emails and documents, the word does come up a lot and so I thought it might be a good idea to mention it. Some have seemed to highlight that as to imply they think CRU was making up (synthesizing) data when that isn’t the case.
I tend to think Dave Schimel’s was saying how much CO2 gets into the air rests on political decisions as well as the basic physical limitations. Why not just send him an email and ask?
If he answers like I expect, he would be due an apology. But I see how you could have read it the way you did. Do you have any other reason to believe your interpretation of the email apart from your reading of its contents?
I only saw one other of his emails. It was contained in another and signed DS.
“And yet here they are saying that they don’t have full confidence in their model projections”
While that might be true for the author of that particular item, I believe the confidence level varies across the set of researchers. Hansen, for example, seems to have a different level of confidence.
#25, While I agree with your interpretation, there is no need at all to apologize. Consider the way the amount of CO2 presented affects the outcome of the process and how beat down the individual was for discussing reasonable levels. Dr. Shrikant was trying to make a ‘realistic’ assessment.
No matter how this is interpreted it ain’t real good. Now from the tone of these 1000 plus emails (which I have read) I won’t be apologizing to several of them soon. They owe the world a few apologies in my opinion.
RE: 25 John G Bell
John, I think you’re missing the reason this email is disturbing. Dave S is simply folowing marching orders from the “synthesis team”. It is also clear that Dave is saying they have even done away with the scenario being internally consistent. It is plain that this is advocacy first, and science second, and it undercuts the claim that the IPCC reports are the pinnacle of science, they are advocacy dressed up as science.
Shrikant told Schimel not to rely on these “what-if storylines”. Sounds like great advice as their authors said as much in their paper. It was the media and PR that spun it from a storyline to a projection. Sorry to be so vague about the paper, but it was forgettable.
I’ll get another coffee. I’ve been reading these things for hours. I agree that the emails as a whole are absolutely damning. Who would work with a team member after this? This is anti-science not bad science.
Obviously I wanted to say Schimel told Shrikant in #30. So the coffee is urgent :).
Agreed on the coffee part John. These documents are a bit like a good book. Hard to put down until you read them all.
You would think scientists would be concerned with the impact of mitigation policies on industry and the poor. Universally this is ignored in these emails.
RE: 29 Eric Barnes
Thanks. 400 emails in. The social analysis section in the Wegman report is proved to have come to the right conclusions don’t you think?
RE: 33 Jeff Id
Yep, not a whisper in anything I’ve seen. But if you have the sort of budget and lifestyle these guys had, poverty must seem a very abstract concept.
Jeff perhaps I have to look through it again. When I saw these e-mails the first time around, they struck me as no big deal, and I generally deleted them.
There has been an issue where Dr Raupach placed in the Copenhagen Synthesis Report that emissions were above IPCC estimates from FAR. This led to a back and forth with Ian Castles at the Blackboard, who complained hat they did it all wrong. Roger Pielke Jr as also complained that their numbers are not realistic.
I think perhaps this is more the people differing over the use of the SRES scenarios. If they are primarily intended as a baseline in modeling, then it doesn’t matter if the numbers are realistic, as long as they cover a wide range. As it was the SRES scenarios were specified as being assigned no probability. This has been misused as equal probability.
If the scenarios are meant as predictions of future usage, then being realistic is more important. I think the senior guy has it right, since they were not assigning probabilities to the scenarios.
Hey Jeff, I have a feeling that 99% of the scientists in Climatology understand this and are probably disturbed by the contradictions between AGW, the PC Sales pitch, and AGW, the scientific theory. As a someone who has a wife, children and a mortgage, I can understand how somebody could rationalize away quite a few concerns. I think that with AGW the theory becoming weaker, it’s getting harder to support what’s been done by the IPCC. Hopefully Climatology (especially paleoclimatology) will become more transparent and inclusive. I get the feeling there would be a lot of support for this not only among the blogosphere, but in the scientific community as well. BTW, thanks for the great articles. 🙂
#35, I think that picking of extremes for projections has a substantial political aim whether they assign a probability to it or not. If the purpose is to show worst case non-realistic scenarios, then I’m not sure what the goal of the IPCC really is. Is it the purpose of the IPCC to set baselines for modeling or is it what everyone else thinks – governance an policy making?
I know from reading the reports I didn’t interpret the scenarios as a-priori non-realistic. IMHO, that’s why there was a bit of confusion regarding unrealistic numbers and such a strong reaction to them from the scientists and then those who are apparently in charge.
When thinking about the tone of this email, why is the whole point such a problem that it’s out of line?
RE: 34 John G. Bell
Agreed about the Wegman report. Given how responsive Mann was about previous criticisms from Mcintyre, Mccitrick, and others, I suppose it’s not surprising he completely ignored the advice from the Wegman report. These documents make that plainly obvious and vindicate Wegman’s statements.
400 hundred!! I hope I haven’t got that far yet, although I’m getting quite a bit of heat from my wife for being a “computer troll”. 🙂
I haven’t run the numbers myself, but I’ve seen estimates that about half the SRES scenarios have petroleum use, not just fossil fuels in general, being higher in 2100 than now. Only the hardest core abiotic oil believer would say that was possible. So how are the limits of reserves and resources being applied here? Assigning no probability is rather different than using something that is a complete fantasy on its face. Using Monetary Exchange Rates instead of Purchasing Power Parity for current GDP’s causes similar problems with estimates of future GDP’s and thus energy use.
RE: 34 John G. Bell
I think this will be bigger than the folks at RC would dare believe. Remember how the AGW activists made fun of Wegman on this point? A certifiable stats guy with impeccable credentials.
Imagine he was testifying and these Bozo’s make fun of sworn (IIRC) testimony as an expert asked to do this by the Senate (IIRC). And they made fun of his results.
Now, there is proof positive of the dangers he stated in his testimony actually happened!
This is the type of report that Andrew Revkin should do! About how it was acceptable to ignore such a credible source on stats.
I think what they are saying is that CO2 emission projections for the future are based on how industrialized different countries become, and publicizing THAT is a political battle. Which country wants to admit in an international publication that its CO2 emissions and economy are headed down the toilet? That’s not a way to win an election.
#33 “You would think scientists would be concerned with the impact of mitigation policies on industry and the poor. Universally this is ignored in these emails.”
Here’s one:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=40&filename=880476729.txt
#42, Thanks for the link. It sounds hopeful when scientists write this kind of thing rather than ‘we must cut emissions by 80% in 30 years’.
Jeff, when I saw the scenarios, I thought they were unrealistically LOW in their emissions predictions. I only skimmed over the e-mails, but I think the dispute is more over the amounts of different greenhouse gases.
I see nothing wrong here. The scenarios are out of whack, and everybody knows it.
But inventing your own scenario not only takes time, but it makes your results difficult to compare to those of other researchers.
The scenarios are going to be revised before the next report.
I confidently predict that five years after they are finalized, they will also seem hopelessly optimistic.
As far as CO2 emission cuts, of course this is a political decision. Its nice to have them acknowledge this (as opposed to James Hansen, for example, who wants to dictate to governments what the appropriate levels are).
What has happened here to me is absolutely clear:
1. the high industrialized countries do not have innovative production potential enough.
2. America, based on the private consumption, tyres because the private inquiry tyres.
3. The private inquiry tyres because everybody knows that consumption above loans is critical for each family.
How do I generate economic growth? By a new history, the history of the self-generated problem CO2.