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