The released e-mails provide a glimpse into inappropriate behavior by members of the CCSP 1.1 Committee and Phil Jones. The CCSP 1.1 report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences was published in 2006. My view of that report was, and remains, that while there is useful and scientifically valuable information in it, it avoided discussing a number of substantive questions , including the robustness of the multi-decadal land surface temperature data of NCDC (Tom Karl), CRU (Phil Jones) and GISS (Jim Hansen).
From my understanding on the committee, we were supposed to keep our discussions internal to the committee. Indeed Phil Jones writes in one of the e-mails “ I’m not supposed to talk to anyone of the report authors !” [the exclamation point was in the e-mail].
In terms of the individuals mentioned below:
1. Phil Jones, Judy Curry and Jim Hurrell served as committee members of the NRC committee reviewing a draft of the CCSP 1.1 report
2. Tom Peterson, Tom Wigley, Tom Karl, Ben Santer and I were members of the CCSP 1.1 committee
My involvement in the CCSP 1.1 terminated with my resignation in August 2005 as documented on my weblog; e.g. see where I summarized the reasons:
1. There was an inappropriate narrowing of the focus of the CCSP charge to the committee in the report;
2. The circulation of an alternative version of Chapter 6, in which I was Convening Lead Author, in order to enforce this narrow view;
3. The premature reporting of selected versions from the report to the media and policymakers prior to its actual finalization and public release.
I provided a formal response with respect to my resignation in
Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences“. 88 pp including appendices.
The e-mails that present the inappropriate behavior of a subset of CCSP 1.1 committee members and Phil Jones this include [highlight added]from [
] where excerpts read [highlight added]
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: News travels fast as you might have guessed
to: John Christy <REDACTED>
REDACTED Heard back from several sources about the Chicago meeting. Similar sentiments from Jim Hurrell. Email from Tom Peterson below and Jim’s bit pasted in below. It seems that not all was solved – re his last sentence about Pielke !
Sitting in the CCSP meeting, but I wanted to let you know of what I believe is really remarkable progress. And I give much credit to Roy Spencer. He has admitted UAH Tlt has a negative bias, accepting the RSS argument the diurnal cycle correction is of the wrong sign
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 14:07:44 -0400
From: “Thomas C Peterson” <REDACTED>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/REDACTED
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
Subject: Latest MSU results
I just thought I’d send my CCSP trip report on to you too as it discusses the latest developments in MSU VTT matters that I’m sure you will be addressing in IPCC.
from: Phil Jones <REDACTED>
subject: Re: This and that – and CCSP
to: Tom Wigley
Thanks for that. I was just about to get around to rewording that and sending it back. I had to read the first draft of the comments on the Executive Summary from one of the other panel members. Although there is a lot to do, I think you’ll like some of them. Many of the other chapter authors may not, though ! Maybe we’ll end up with some more dissenters ! A lot relate to Fu et al as you might have guessed. We have a conf call next Friday at 4pm my time, when hopefully we’ll get something towards closure on this. I’ve only had emails from two people on the panel and the secretary since I left Chicago. Unfortunately Mike Wallace doesn’t seem to have had time to look through Ch 5 (well very briefly). He was only on the conf call in Chicago for 30 minutes. He didn’t say much.
At 16:12 11/03/2005, you wrote:
SEE BELOW — SAME THING SAID TWICE
Phil Jones wrote:
REDACTEDIn Asheville this week but now back. Had a brief work with Tom K. on the VTT work. So he got a summary like you. I’m not supposed to be talking to anyone of your group except through Tom K. I’ve just got comments on your exec summ from Dennis Hartmann. I’ll go through these this weekend. I think I’ve effectively signed off on Chapters 3 and 5. REDACTEDYou’ll likely have to rewrite the summary to pick up the bullet points from the other 6 chapters. Hopefully you’ll get comments before May 1. We have to finish by April 1 (there is a conf call on the 18th), which will hopefully be it for me. REDACTEDAt the moment the NRC person is having difficulty with my following comment -
There is an issue related to land-use/land-cover (LULC) changes that >could be addressed here or maybe elsewhere in other chapters. This is >that in the modeling discussion (in Chapters 5 and 6) LULC is considered >to be a forcing
AND IN CH. 1
that is in some models and not incorporated in others as >the forcing and its history is uncertain.
If it is a forcing
NOTE WORDING — *NOT* A FORCING?
(and we >think it is
‘IS’ OR ‘IS NOT’ — AMBIGUOUS IF NOT CAREFULLY WORDDED), then we should not be worrying that it influences the
>surface or tropospheric temperature record.
If it is a forcing
???? SAME THING TWICE ???
then it >needs to be in the data
WHAT DATA? YOU CAN’T HAVE A FORCING IN THE TEMP DATA — BUT YOU COULD HAVE THE *EFFECTS* OF A FORCING IN THE TEMP DATA
in the order that it might be found. You can’t >have it both ways – the data are affected by it, so they are somehow >wrong, yet it is omitted from many models.”
GOOD GRIEF — I HAVE RARELY READ ANYTHING SO POORLY WORDED!!
I do need to work on the English a little
BOY — WHAT AN UNDERSTATEMENT
, but it should be understandable. Tom K is also very fed up with Pielke !
PS Have you been getting postcards from Thomson publishing (?)
about essential science indicators. I have 3, for 3 papers saying they’ve been heavily cited. The 3 are fromREDACTEDand have been cited 57, 68 and 41 times !
PER YEAR?? EVEN 68 TOTAL CITES IN 7 YEARS IS NOT MUCH.
3 articles in the top 1% of the field. Articles are the one with Anders Moberg in 2003, one in Science on the last millennium
in 2001 and the one on error estimates from 1997.
At 23:46 10/03/2005, you wrote:
THanx Phil. Some comments in caps ….
Phil Jones wrote:
BEN WAS REALLY PISSED OFF WITH ROGER – AS WAS TOM KARL I GUESS (NOT YET TALKED TO HIM).ALL OF HIS POINTS CAN BE SHOT DOWN, BUT IT IS A PAIN NONE THE LESS. APPARENLTY JUDY CURRY EXPOSED HER INFERIORITY COMPLEX (ANS HER INFERIORITY).
REDACTEDOff tomorrow and not back in CRU till March 10. I’m not supposed to talk to anyone of the report authors ! There was a lot of odd things said after the presentations in Chicago last week. We’re charged with writing a report, which will be published but you get to rewrite the report and no-one sees the one we looked at ! What is the point of publishing it ! REDACTED Roger Pielke didn’t come out of it too well. Some thought he had some good ideas but didn’t express them very well.Most thought he just didn’t express them very well. All thought Ben’s was the best chapter. Almost all think RSS is right. Also why is Fu et al. dismissed as controversial?
A VERY GOOD POINT TO STRESS. THIS IS CHRISTY’S WORDING.
Likely most work will be needed on Ch 6 and 1, then 2-4 and least for 5. The Exec Summary was deemed OK, but it isn’t a summary of the report,
ACTUALLY, IT IS. ALL ITEMS *ARE* IN THE CHAPTERS — BUT ONLY THOSE DEEMED MOST IMPORTANT (BY ALL EXCEPT ROGER!!) MAYBE I WILL HAVE TO DO ANOTHER (SIDE) VERSION THAT CITES THE SOURCES BY CHAPTER AND LINE NUMBER.
so you’ll have to do some major reworking. REDACTED Remember I didn’t tell you all this. Lots of details to come – not sure when. Seems a long-winded process.
COMMENTS DUE BY MAY 1, THEN WE HAVE 2 WEEKS TO MODIFY/RESPOND.
Thus, while there are science issues discussed in these e-mails, it was an inappropriate interaction between members of the CCSP 1.1 committee and the NRC review panel. These exchanges occurred only with a subset of the CCSP 1.1. committee members.