{"id":6539,"date":"2011-11-27T21:34:59","date_gmt":"2011-11-28T02:34:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/?p=6539"},"modified":"2011-11-27T21:34:59","modified_gmt":"2011-11-28T02:34:59","slug":"climategate-2-0-mann-did-pad-his-data-a-little-says-jones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/2011\/11\/climategate-2-0-mann-did-pad-his-data-a-little-says-jones\/","title":{"rendered":"Climategate 2.0: ‘[Mann] did pad his data a little’, says Jones"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Perhaps “padding” has some technical meaning?<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>From the Climategate 2.0 collection, Phil Jones writes to Ben Santer about the Michael Mann\/hockey stick controversy:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>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<br \/>\nlot and get pretty much the same result.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>How much is “little difference”?<\/p>\n<p>Read the e-mail exchange below.<\/p>\n<p>date: Mon Nov 1 10:46:49 2004<br \/>\nfrom: Phil Jones <\/p>\n<p>\nsubject: Re: pdf files from the Seattle meeting<br \/>\nto: Ben Santer<br \/>\nBen,<br \/>\nI saw the Muller article – the guy must have an agenda ! Mike used to respond to<br \/>\nthese<br \/>\nsorts of things, quite vociferously, but has just given up recently as whatever he says<br \/>\ngets distorted and it appears he has no chance of convincing people.<br \/>\nThe Mc\/Mc article was reviewed by Nature and rejected. As far as I know Mike was<br \/>\nhappy<br \/>\nwith it coming out and had a response drafted. Nature decided it wasn’t worth<br \/>\npublishing.<br \/>\nMaybe Mike can tell you more – or you’re old sparring partner Heike Langenburg. Guess<br \/>\nyou’ll<br \/>\nnot want to contact her !<br \/>\nI sent a load of files before leaving for Florence in an email to Tom. Most of them<br \/>\nwere<br \/>\nabout the von Storch et al paper. Hans was in Florence much to my surprise – I did go to<br \/>\na<br \/>\nmeeting for 1.5 days ! Mike has written a response to this paper and that is being<br \/>\nreviewed by<br \/>\nScience. It seems they do this before sending to the authors of the paper commented<br \/>\nupon.<br \/>\nMuller is just parroting the same garbage from the Mc\/Mc web site. It is appalling<br \/>\nthat<br \/>\npeople do this, without even reading the papers. We had a small go at Mc\/Mc in the<br \/>\nRev. Geophys paper, but the reviewers of that paper thought it wasn’t that appropriate<br \/>\nas the Mc\/Mc views were so off the wall and so wrong and so badly put.<br \/>\nFor some reason Tom seems to think there is no smoke without fire and believes<br \/>\nthere<br \/>\nis something in it all. He is wrong this time. If Mike is guilty of anything, it is<br \/>\noverresponding<br \/>\nand too quickly when these things kept coming out. As I said he’s given up now.<br \/>\nBasic thing to point out in any assessment you make is that other groups have come to<br \/>\nvery similar conclusions to MBH – namely Tom Crowley, Briffa et al, Jones et al. and<\/p>\n<p>even Esper et al.<br \/>\nMike did pad his data a little at the ends and beginning to get common periods, but<br \/>\nonly<br \/>\nby a maximum of 10 years. This would make little difference. You can just average the<br \/>\nlot and get pretty much the same result. Mike has a paper coming out with many of us<br \/>\nin J. Climate – I’ll see if I can find this to forward. This shows the results if you take<br \/>\nKeith’s<br \/>\ndata and Mike’s method you get much the same result as we got in our 2001 paper.<br \/>\nScott Rutherford who works with Mike has made some mistakes – doesn’t seem to<br \/>\nhave that<br \/>\nfeel for data I keep talking about ! He did put all the data into a file for Mc\/Mc about<br \/>\n3 years ago.<br \/>\nThey said they couldn’t deal with it as it was ascii and they asked Scott to put it into<br \/>\nExcel –<br \/>\nyes they do things in this format ! Scott didn’t have much experience with Excel and<br \/>\nmade<br \/>\na few<br \/>\nmistakes – data repeating or whatever. Instead of comparing with the Ascii files, they<br \/>\nsaid in<br \/>\nthat great paleo journal E&E that MBH had made mistakes.<br \/>\nFlorence was good – only rained 2 days and we had a great time. Hope you can make<br \/>\nit in<br \/>\nApril.<br \/>\nCheers<br \/>\nPhil<br \/>\nAt 00:02 27\/10\/2004, you wrote:<br \/>\nDear Phil,<br \/>\nIt was great to see you in Seattle. Hopefully I will (finally!) get a chance to<br \/>\nvisit CRU in 2005.<br \/>\nSorry about the mistakes in the Powerpoint file. Most of the info in the file<br \/>\ncame from other IDAG members, so I’m blameless in this particular case. The IDAG<br \/>\ntalk in Seattle went pretty well, although Michael Ghil asked a rather inane<br \/>\nquestion at the end of it.<br \/>\nKen Sperber, Karl and I were asked yesterday to provide the U.S. DOE with a<br \/>\nquick assessment of recent criticism of the Mann et al. temperature<br \/>\nreconstruction. The DOE’s focus was on a web article by Richard Muller, a<br \/>\nphysics professor at U.C. Berkeley. Muller, in turn, based his criticism on the<br \/>\nunpublished web material of McIntyre and McKitrick. Muller is a member of the<br \/>\nDOE-funded “Jasons” group, so he’s a pretty big cheese. His web article was<br \/>\nabsolutely appalling. He made no attempt to be balanced and fair. I’m really<br \/>\ndismayed that Mike has to put up with this kind of stuff…<br \/>\nHope you and Ruth are having a good time in Florence.<br \/>\nWith best regards,<br \/>\nBen<br \/>\nPhil Jones wrote:<br \/>\n><br \/>\n> Ben,<br \/>\n> Here’s the paper with Adrian (and diagrams separately) that has been<br \/>\n> accepted by<br \/>\n> JGR and also the ERA-40 report. Maybe they might be of use in some aspect<br \/>\n> of the<br \/>\n> CCSP report.<br \/>\n> Thanks for the ppt files you gave. A couple of things to correct you<br \/>\n> on. 1. The Atmos Obs<br \/>\n> chapter is #3 not #6. #6 is paleo and Keith is involved in that. Keith is<br \/>\n> due to write the bit<br \/>\n> on the last 1-2K years and I’ll be helping with that as I’m the link<br \/>\n> between the two chapters.<br \/>\n> 2. The Jones (2004) piece is about the very cold period of the 1740s –<br \/>\n> the biggest interdecade<br \/>\n> change in the CET record. There was something else, but It can’t be that<br \/>\n> important. I’ve left<br \/>\n> my notes and laptop at home today.<br \/>\n> It was good to see you again and passed on your best to Ruth. We’re<br \/>\n> off at 3pm today for<br \/>\n> our week’s holiday in Florence. Hope you can make it here in the Spring.<br \/>\n><br \/>\n> Sending to Tom as well ! I’ll also reply to Tom shortly about his email.<br \/>\n><br \/>\n> Cheers<br \/>\n> Phil<br \/>\n><br \/>\n> Prof. Phil Jones<br \/>\n> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090<br \/>\n> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784<br \/>\n> University of East Anglia<br \/>\n> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk<br \/>\n> NR4 7TJ<br \/>\n> UK<br \/>\n> —————————————————————————-<br \/>\n><br \/>\n> ——————————————————————————–<br \/>\n> Name: crupaper2.pdf<br \/>\n> crupaper2.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application\/pdf)<br \/>\n> Encoding: base64<br \/>\n><br \/>\n> Name: crupaper_figs.pdf<br \/>\n> crupaper_figs.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application\/pdf)<br \/>\n> Encoding: base64<br \/>\n><br \/>\n> Name: ERA40_PRS18.pdf<br \/>\n> ERA40_PRS18.pdf Type: Portable Document Format (application\/pdf)<br \/>\n> Encoding: base64<br \/>\n—<br \/>\n—————————————————————————-<br \/>\nBenjamin D. Santer<br \/>\nProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison<br \/>\nLawrence Livermore National Laboratory<br \/>\nP.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103<br \/>\nLivermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.<br \/>\nTel: (925) 422-2486<br \/>\nFAX: (925) 422-7675<br \/>\nemail: santer1@llnl.gov<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Perhaps “padding” has some technical meaning?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-climate-energy"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6SqJi-1Ht","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6539"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6539\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/junkscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}