Climategate 2.0: ‘[Mann] did pad his data a little’, says Jones

Perhaps “padding” has some technical meaning?

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Phil Jones writes to Ben Santer about the Michael Mann/hockey stick controversy:

Mike did pad his data a little at the ends and beginning to get common periods, but only by a maximum of 10 years. This would make little difference. You can just average the
lot and get pretty much the same result.

How much is “little difference”?

Read the e-mail exchange below.

date: Mon Nov 1 10:46:49 2004
from: Phil Jones

subject: Re: pdf files from the Seattle meeting
to: Ben Santer
Ben,
I saw the Muller article – the guy must have an agenda ! Mike used to respond to
these
sorts of things, quite vociferously, but has just given up recently as whatever he says
gets distorted and it appears he has no chance of convincing people.
The Mc/Mc article was reviewed by Nature and rejected. As far as I know Mike was
happy
with it coming out and had a response drafted. Nature decided it wasn’t worth
publishing.
Maybe Mike can tell you more – or you’re old sparring partner Heike Langenburg. Guess
you’ll
not want to contact her !
I sent a load of files before leaving for Florence in an email to Tom. Most of them
were
about the von Storch et al paper. Hans was in Florence much to my surprise – I did go to
a
meeting for 1.5 days ! Mike has written a response to this paper and that is being
reviewed by
Science. It seems they do this before sending to the authors of the paper commented
upon.
Muller is just parroting the same garbage from the Mc/Mc web site. It is appalling
that
people do this, without even reading the papers. We had a small go at Mc/Mc in the
Rev. Geophys paper, but the reviewers of that paper thought it wasn’t that appropriate
as the Mc/Mc views were so off the wall and so wrong and so badly put.
For some reason Tom seems to think there is no smoke without fire and believes
there
is something in it all. He is wrong this time. If Mike is guilty of anything, it is
overresponding
and too quickly when these things kept coming out. As I said he’s given up now.
Basic thing to point out in any assessment you make is that other groups have come to
very similar conclusions to MBH – namely Tom Crowley, Briffa et al, Jones et al. and

even Esper et al.
Mike did pad his data a little at the ends and beginning to get common periods, but
only
by a maximum of 10 years. This would make little difference. You can just average the
lot and get pretty much the same result. Mike has a paper coming out with many of us
in J. Climate – I’ll see if I can find this to forward. This shows the results if you take
Keith’s
data and Mike’s method you get much the same result as we got in our 2001 paper.
Scott Rutherford who works with Mike has made some mistakes – doesn’t seem to
have that
feel for data I keep talking about ! He did put all the data into a file for Mc/Mc about
3 years ago.
They said they couldn’t deal with it as it was ascii and they asked Scott to put it into
Excel –
yes they do things in this format ! Scott didn’t have much experience with Excel and
made
a few
mistakes – data repeating or whatever. Instead of comparing with the Ascii files, they
said in
that great paleo journal E&E that MBH had made mistakes.
Florence was good – only rained 2 days and we had a great time. Hope you can make
it in
April.
Cheers
Phil
At 00:02 27/10/2004, you wrote:
Dear Phil,
It was great to see you in Seattle. Hopefully I will (finally!) get a chance to
visit CRU in 2005.
Sorry about the mistakes in the Powerpoint file. Most of the info in the file
came from other IDAG members, so I’m blameless in this particular case. The IDAG
talk in Seattle went pretty well, although Michael Ghil asked a rather inane
question at the end of it.
Ken Sperber, Karl and I were asked yesterday to provide the U.S. DOE with a
quick assessment of recent criticism of the Mann et al. temperature
reconstruction. The DOE’s focus was on a web article by Richard Muller, a
physics professor at U.C. Berkeley. Muller, in turn, based his criticism on the
unpublished web material of McIntyre and McKitrick. Muller is a member of the
DOE-funded “Jasons” group, so he’s a pretty big cheese. His web article was
absolutely appalling. He made no attempt to be balanced and fair. I’m really
dismayed that Mike has to put up with this kind of stuff…
Hope you and Ruth are having a good time in Florence.
With best regards,
Ben
Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Ben,
> Here’s the paper with Adrian (and diagrams separately) that has been
> accepted by
> JGR and also the ERA-40 report. Maybe they might be of use in some aspect
> of the
> CCSP report.
> Thanks for the ppt files you gave. A couple of things to correct you
> on. 1. The Atmos Obs
> chapter is #3 not #6. #6 is paleo and Keith is involved in that. Keith is
> due to write the bit
> on the last 1-2K years and I’ll be helping with that as I’m the link
> between the two chapters.
> 2. The Jones (2004) piece is about the very cold period of the 1740s –
> the biggest interdecade
> change in the CET record. There was something else, but It can’t be that
> important. I’ve left
> my notes and laptop at home today.
> It was good to see you again and passed on your best to Ruth. We’re
> off at 3pm today for
> our week’s holiday in Florence. Hope you can make it here in the Spring.
>
> Sending to Tom as well ! I’ll also reply to Tom shortly about his email.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> Name: crupaper2.pdf
> crupaper2.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: crupaper_figs.pdf
> crupaper_figs.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: ERA40_PRS18.pdf
> ERA40_PRS18.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> Encoding: base64

—————————————————————————-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-2486
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov

4 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0: ‘[Mann] did pad his data a little’, says Jones”

  1. Pretty damining stuff. Pity the “investigation” will probably be whitewashed as was “climategate 1”. Perhaps we need to put pressure on the politicians to have a full investigation in to the matter.

  2. Additional investigations and inquiries are definitely going to happen as a result of this second batch of emails. And the type of questions that were not asked in the first whitewashed inquiries are going to be asked in the new inquiries. The new inquiries will be better than the previous ones. But we shouldn’t pretend that they will be perfect either. But new inquiries are unavoidable as there is simply too much evidence in front of the public eye. Evidence that sounds too much like we’ve been duped. Evidence that contradicts the water tight story the players have been feeding us for well over a decade. Evidence that uses language that refutes their own original bullet proof “cause”. The evidence clearly shows that the CRU science (and others) is dramatically more uncertain and that the players involved used and continue to use political activism as their primary preferred method rather than the scientific method. Their appeals to authority have been completely and utterly undermined by their own private actions. The public now demands that they be properly and thoroughly investigated for their words are now on public display and what we see is sickening and disgusting to anyone who has a shred of decency.

  3. If padding didn’t make a significant difference then why did Mann feel the need to do it?

    Because without padding the data, he wouldn’t have gotten the result that he wanted.

    The corruption among the AGW warmists is breathtaking.

  4. Is there anyway to get a congressional investigation going on these guys? It’s clear that the previous institutional investigations if they can even be called that were just white washes. All of the Hockey team need to be run out of academia. They’ll all find cushy jobs with environmental activists groups, which is where they more appropriately belong.

Comments are closed.