The one message I’d like to convey is we do not need to rush on this. This will be around to examine and feed our discussions for a long time to come. If we start right, it will go better for us. There seems to be some indications of possible unethical behaviour, if these are true representations of email communications. It isn’t right to tell people to delete emails that may be the subject of FOI requests, at the very least. But we don’t need to pile onto this right now.
Fascinating … a taste: ./mail/0933255789.txt
From: Adam Markham
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50%
of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public
splash on this they need something that will get good support from
CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
“The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999,
Let me know what you think. Adam
Another good one … ./mail/0926947295.txt
A researcher asks (naively) why the rates of CO2 accumulation being used are so unrealistically high:
From: franci [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, May 15, 1999 3:58 PM
> To: Benjamin Felzer
> Cc: Mike Hulme; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
> firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Mike MacCracken
> Subject: Re: CO2
> dear ben,
> You just showed that the Hadley transient run we are supposed to use for the
> national assessment is too high, forcing-wise, because it assumes an overall
> 1.2% increase in total forcing.
> My question is then the following:
> -why are we using a 1% annual increase in GHG forcing (corresponding to the
> 1.2% increase) as a criteria for GCM simulations to then be used for the
> national assessment? Is it because of the possible confusion you refer to
> below? If so, that criteria needs to be revised.
To be told off in no uncertain terms:
From: Dave Schimel
To: Shrikant Jagtap
Subject: RE: CO2
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:21:35 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: franci , Benjamin Felzer , Mike Hulme , firstname.lastname@example.org, wigl
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Mike MacCracken
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.
UPDATE: The Mick Shedlock post Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam summarizes the revelations so far, giving a finance community perspective on the (mis)behavior of Phil Jones in particular.