Climategate 2.0: Shocker — 2007 NRC review of hokey stick rigged by alarmists

Note to alarmists: Keep Michael Mann away from sending e-mail.

From the Climategatew 2.0 collection, Keith Briffa wonders out loud to Michael Mann whether he should participate in the 2007 National Research Council (often mistakenly referred to as the National Academy of Sciences) review of the hokey stick. Mann encourages Briffa, but tells him not to worry since its all arranged to produce the right outcome.

After receiving the invitation from the National Research Council, Briffa writes to Mann:

Mike
IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be frank, I am inclined to decline . What do think?
Presumably you and others are already in the frame?
Keith

Mann responds,

Hi Keith,

I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn’t given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim [Osborn] I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.

I’m scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven’t heard anything.

The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:

http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?OpenDocument

So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you’d like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone number is 814-876-0485. I teach in about an hour, for about 1.5 hours, but then free most of the day… [Emphasis added]

Briffa responds,

Mike

thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is intense – but the real reason is that I really think it could be politic to retreat into “neutral” mode, at least until after the IPCC. Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics are starting to attack on this “non neutral” stance, and the less public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I am a wimp here – just trying to go the way I think best.

best wishes
Keith

With the Looming dominance of Steve McIntyre, Mann presses Briffa,

Hi Keith,

I’m pretty sure they’re just asking for a neutral discussion of the science that you’ve done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you’re coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any possibility Tim could do this instead? He’s less intimately involved w/the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think
they’ll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the legitimate scientists.
Thanks,
mike

The full e-mail exchange is below.

Hi Keith,
I’m pretty sure they’re just asking for a neutral discussion of the
science that you’ve done that is relevant to the issues being reviewed
by the committee (after all this is the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, not the U.S. Senate, etc). But I understand where you’re
coming from nonetheless. Perhaps you could suggest an alternate? Any
possibility Tim could do this instead? He’s less intimately involved w/
the paleo chapter of IPCC, so I think it might be less of a worry for
him? Or Phil? Its your prerogative to suggest alternates, and I think
they’ll take your suggestions very seriously. My greatest fear is that
McIntyre dominates the discussion. Its important that they hear from the
legitimate scientists.
Thanks,
mike
Keith Briffa wrote:
> Mike
> thanks for this but after a lot of soul searching this weekend , I
> have decided to decline the invitation. Pressure of stuff here is
> intense – but the real reason is that I really think it could be
> politic to retreat into “neutral” mode , at least until after the IPCC

> Report is out. I know you can argue this various ways but the sceptics
> are starting to attack on this “non neutral” stance, and the less
> public I am at the moment the better I think. Hope you do not think I
> am a wimp here – just trying to go the way I think best.
> best wishes
> Keith
>
> At 17:14 09/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I think you really *should* do this if you possibly can. The panel is
>> entirely legititimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood
>> Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in
>> the whole Barton affair. The assumption is that an honest
>> review of the science will buttress us against any attempt for Barton
>> to continue his attacks (there is some indication that he hasn’t
>> given up yet). Especially, with the new Science article by you and
>> Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all
>> possible.
>>
>> I’m scheduled to arrive Thursday March 2rd, and give a presentation
>> friday morning March 2nd. I believe Malcolm is planning on
>> participating, not sure about Ray. I would guess that Tom C and
>> Caspar A have been invited as well, but haven’t heard anything.
>>
>> The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing
>> this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token
>> skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check:
>> http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/
8f6526d9731740728525663500684166/2dbbe64b5fe9981b8525710f007025b2?
OpenDocument
>>
>>
>> So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider! Let me know if you’d
>> like to chat over the phone at all about any of this. My cell phone
>> number is 814-876-0485. I teach in about an hour, for about 1.5
>> hours, but then free most of the day…
>>
>> mike
>>
>> Keith Briffa wrote:
>>
>>> Mike
>>> IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be
>>> frank, I am inclined to decline . What do think?
>>> Presumably you and others are already in the frame?
>>> Keith
>>>
>>>
>>>> X-SBRS: None
>>>> X-REMOTE-IP: 144.171.38.41—————————————————
>>>> X-IronPort-AV: i=”4.02,98,1139202000″;
>>>> d=”doc’32?scan’32,208,32″; a=”8557254:sNHT39904420″
>>>> Subject: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface
>>>> Temperature Reconstructions
>>>> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:55:58 -0500
>>>> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>>>> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>>>> Thread-Topic: Invitation to speak to the NRC Committee on Surface
>>>> Temperature Reconstructions
>>>> Thread-Index:
>>>> AcYce3i/
tURJ1nRBSbezvDYAmbiDhQAAJeAgAABmHeAAAFz5YAABterwAAAqT9AAKTmk4AAFc
V2QAAGRMBAAADHXgALyVAvAAJatBwAAACel8AABGFiwAAGtjsAAXF4z0A==
>>>>
>>>> From: “Kraucunas, Ian”
>>>> To:
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Level: /
>>>> X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO
>>>>
>>>> Dear Dr. Briffa,
>>>>
>>>> The National Research Council of The National Academies of the United
>>>> States is empanelling a committee to study “Surface Temperature
>>>> Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years”. The committee
>>>> will be
>>>> asked to summarize the current scientific information on the
>>>> temperature
>>>> record over the past two millennia, describe the proxy records that
>>>> have
>>>> been used to reconstruct pre-instrumental climatic conditions, assess
>>>> the methods employed to combine multiple proxy data over large spatial
>>>> scales, evaluate the overall accuracy and precision of such
>>>> reconstructions, and explain how central the debate over the
>>>> paleoclimate temperature record is to the state of scientific
>>>> knowledge
>>>> on global climate change. I have attached the complete study proposal
>>>> (Word document).
>>>>
>>>> Since this issue has been the subject of considerable controversy, we
>>>> have taken great care to assemble an unbiased panel of scientific
>>>> experts with the appropriate range of expertise to produce an
>>>> authoritative report on the subject. The committee slate will be
>>>> formally announced on Wednesday, but I can tell you that Jerry North
>>>> (Texas A&M) will be chairing the committee, and NAS Members Mike
>>>> Wallace, Karl Turekian, and Bob Dickinson will be on the panel, in
>>>> addition to a half-dozen other scientists with expertise in
>>>> statistics,
>>>> climate variability, and several different types of paleoclimate proxy
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> The committee would like to invite you to come to Washington DC on
>>>> Thursday, March 2nd to speak about your extensive work with this area
>>>> and to discuss your perspective on the issues noted above and in the
>>>> study proposal. The committee will be familiar with the relevant
>>>> peer-reviewed literature, but is also interested in any recently
>>>> submitted or accepted papers. We will be inviting 8-10 other
>>>> experts to
>>>> speak; a complete agenda will be made available prior to the meeting,
>>>> and the meeting will be open to the public. Speakers will be
>>>> reimbursed
>>>> for travel expenses and invited to stay for the entire open session of
>>>> the meeting (which will include a reception on Thursday evening and a
>>>> few speakers on Friday morning).
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance for your time and interest, I hope that you are
>>>> available and willing to meet with our committee. If you are not
>>>> available on March 2nd, we have a limited number of timeslots
>>>> available
>>>> on March 3rd. We are trying to finalize the meeting schedule by
>>>> Friday
>>>> so please let me know if there is a particularly convenient time
>>>> that I
>>>> could call you this week to discuss details and answer any
>>>> questions you
>>>> might have (or feel free to call me directly).
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Ian Kraucunas
>>>>
>>>> ~~~
>>>> Ian Kraucunas, Ph.D.
>>>> Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
>>>> National Research Council of The National Academies
>>>> 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 705
>>>> Washington, DC 20001
>>>> Email: ikraucunas@nas.edu
>>>> Phone: (202) 334-2546
>>>> Fax: (202) 334-3825
>>>
>>>
>>> –
>>> Professor Keith Briffa,
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>>>
>>> Phone: +44-1603-593909
>>> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>>>
>>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>>
>>
>> –
>> Michael E. Mann
>> Associate Professor
>> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>>
>> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
>> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
>> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
>> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>>
>> http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
>>
>
> –
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/

Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

About these ads

6 responses to “Climategate 2.0: Shocker — 2007 NRC review of hokey stick rigged by alarmists

  1. More excrement from the Piled Higher & Deeper crowd.

  2. Email 4092.txt from 1998 shows that University of East Anglia has a ”strategic alliance” with Goldman-Sachs. This is proof of UEA scientists’ conflict of interest and a fixed agenda to drive the AGW narrative to enable carbon trading and renewable energy markets. Science is about being impartial and investigating the facts, not green activism to push a narrative that bankers want.

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4092.txt&search=Goldman-Sachs

    date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +010 ???
    from: Trevor Davies ???@uea.ac.uk
    subject: goldman-sachs
    to: ???@uea,???@uea,???@uea

    Jean,

    We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They
    now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing
    energy futures market.

    G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ”strategic
    alliance” with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name)
    for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean
    - he needs a date from us). Thanks.

    Trevor

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Professor Trevor D. Davies
    Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich NR4 7TJ
    United Kingdom

    Tel. +44 ???
    Fax. +44 ???
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  3. Goldman Sachs is one of the most corrupt companies in existence. They define crony capitalism as it is currently being practiced in the United States. It is high time these people go to jail for the theft of trillions.

    This is the same Goldman Sachs that was a consultant to the US Government on the AIG fiasco. They gave advice to the US Government which included that they be paid back at 100 cents on the dollar, along with European banks. No one ever gets 100 cents on the dollar for distressed debt! Goldman Sachs directly benefitted from their “advice.”

    They need to be prosecuted as a RICO case. A criminal enterprise that is corrupting the American system of government.

  4. Many remember President D. Eisenhower for warning against the “military-industrial complex”. Few remember him for his concerns about a scientific/university community and government alliance. In 1961 he said:

    ” Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, excerpted from his “Military-Industrial Complex” Speech.

    It has been the aim of environmentalists and liberals to hijack “public policy” using AGW as a justification to bring about massive taxes on carbon-based fuels and bring us closer to one world government and wealth distribution by abrogating the responsibilities of our elected politicians in favor of the U.N. And in the process enrich the U.N., the politicians and their supporters.

  5. It would be most helpful if you could reference the quoted document(s) within the FOIA2011 file, if that is possible.

  6. Pingback: The Strata-Sphere » Climategate II More Devastating Than Climategate I

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