From: Ben Santer To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:07:56 -0700 Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov Dear Phil, I've known Rick Piltz for many years. He's a good guy. I believe he used to work with Mike MacCracken at the U.S. Global Change Research Program. I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. I'll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can. The only reason these guys are going after you is because your work is of crucial importance - it changed the way the world thinks about human effects on climate. Your work mattered in the 1980s, and it matters now. With best wishes, Ben P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Ben, > Thanks for backing me up with whoever Rick is. I forwarded the message > to Rick. So if you want to add anything else feel free to do so. > We have more stations going into the latest CRU data than we did in the > 1980s. > > In Lecce next week for 2 days at a GKSS summer school led by Hans VS! > > Cheers > Phil > >> Dear Rick, >> >> I am prepared to help in any way that I can. >> >> As I see it, there are two key issues here. >> >> First, the CEI and Pat Michaels are arguing that Phil Jones and >> colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) willfully and >> intentionally "destroyed" some of the raw surface temperature data used >> in the construction of the gridded surface temperature datasets. >> >> Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface >> temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC "discernible human >> influence" conclusions. >> >> Both of these arguments are factually incorrect. First, there was no >> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that, over >> 20 years ago, Phil could not have foreseen that the raw station data >> might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and Pat Michaels. >> Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts by other >> scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based estimates of >> global-scale changes in near-surface temperature. In fact, a key point >> here is that other groups (primarily at NCDC and at GISS, but also in >> Russia) WERE able to replicate the major findings of the CRU and Hadley >> Centre groups. The NCDC and GISS groups performed this replication >> completely independently. They made different choices in the complex >> process of choosing input data, adjusting raw station data for known >> inhomogeneities (such as urbanization effects, changes in >> instrumentation, site location, and observation time), and gridding >> procedures. NCDC and GISS-based estimates of global surface temperature >> changes are in good accord with the HadCRUT results. >> >> I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in >> his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in >> Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to >> withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and >> computer program used in the course of his thesis research. >> >> I'm equally sure that John Christy and Roy Spencer have not preserved >> every single version of their MSU-based estimates of tropospheric >> temperature change. Nor is it likely that Christy and Spencer have >> preserved for posterity each and every computer program they used to >> generate UAH tropospheric temperature datasets. >> >> [One irony here is that the Christy/Spencer claim that the troposphere >> had cooled over the satellite era did not stand up to rigorous >> scientific scrutiny. Christy and Spencer have made a scientific career >> out of being wrong. In contrast, CRU's claim of a pronounced increase in >> global-mean surface temperature over the 20th century HAS withstood the >> test of time.] >> >> The CEI and Michaels are applying impossible legal standards to science. >> They are essentially claiming that if we do not retain - and make >> available to self-appointed auditors - every piece of information about >> every scientific paper we have ever published, we are perpetrating some >> vast deception on the American public. I think most ordinary citizens >> understand that few among us have preserved every bank statement and >> every utility bill we've received in the last 20 years. >> >> The second argument - that "discernible human influence" findings are >> like a house of cards, resting solely on one observational dataset - is >> also invalid. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) considers MULTIPLE >> observational estimates of global-scale near-surface temperature >> changes. It does not rely on HadCRUT data alone - as is immediately >> obvious from Figure 2.1b of the TAR, which shows CRU, NCDC, and GISS >> global-mean temperature changes. >> >> As pointed out in numerous scientific assessments (e.g., the IPCC TAR >> and Fourth Assessment Reports, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program >> Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, and the CCSP "State of Knowledge" >> Report), rigorous statistical fingerprint studies have now been >> performed with a whole range of climate variables - and not with surface >> temperature only. Examples include variables like ocean heat content, >> atmospheric water vapor, surface specific humidity, continental river >> runoff, sea-level pressure patterns, stratospheric and tropospheric >> temperature, tropopause height, zonal-mean precipitation over land, and >> Arctic sea-ice extent. The bottom-line message from this body of work is >> that natural causes alone CANNOT plausibly explain the climate changes >> we have actually observed. The climate system is telling us an >> internally- and physically-consistent story. The integrity and >> reliability of this story does NOT rest on a single observational >> dataset, as Michaels and the CEI incorrectly claim. >> >> Michaels should and does know better. I can only conclude from his >> behavior - and from his participation in this legal action - that he is >> being intentionally dishonest. His intervention seems to be timed to >> influence opinion in the run-up to the Copenhagen meeting, and to garner >> publicity for himself. In my personal opinion, Michaels should be kicked >> out of the AMS, the University of Virginia, and the scientific community >> as a whole. He cannot on the one hand engage in vicious public attacks >> on the reputations of individual scientists (in the past he has attacked >> Tom Karl, Tom Wigley, Jim Hansen, Mike Mann, myself, and numerous >> others), and on the other hand expect to be treated as a valued member >> of our professional societies. >> >> The sad thing here is that Phil Jones is one of the true gentlemen of >> our field. I have known Phil for most of my scientific career. He is the >> antithesis of the secretive, "data destroying" character the CEI and >> Michaels are trying to portray to the outside world. Phil and Tom Wigley >> have devoted significant portions of their scientific careers to the >> construction of the land surface temperature component of the HadCRUT >> dataset. They have conducted this research in a very open and >> transparent manner - examining sensitivities to different gridding >> algorithms, different ways of adjusting for urbanization effects, use of >> various subsets of data, different ways of dealing with changes in >> spatial coverage over time, etc. They have thoroughly and >> comprehensively documented all of their dataset construction choices. >> They have done a tremendous service to the scientific community - and to >> the planet - by making gridded surface temperature datasets available >> for scientific research. They deserve medals as big as soup plates - not >> the kind of crap they are receiving from Pat Michaels and the CEI. >> >> The bottom line, Rick, is that I am incensed at the "data destruction" >> allegations that are being unfairly and incorrectly leveled against Phil >> and Tom by the CEI and Pat Michaels. Please let me know how you think I >> can be most effective in rebutting such allegations. Whatever you need >> from me - you've got it. >> >> I hope you don't mind, but I'm also copying my email to John Mitchell at >> the Hadley Centre. I know that John also feels very strongly about these >> issues. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben >> >> Rick Piltz wrote: >>> Gentlemen-- >>> >>> I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA >>> from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for >>> a re-opening of public comment on EPA's prospective "endangerment" >>> finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia >>> has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature >>> record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any >>> other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data >>> record as scientifically legitimate. I have attached the petition in >>> PDF, with a statements by CEI and Michaels. >>> >>> The story was reported in Environment & Energy Daily yesterday (below). >>> They called me for it, presumably because I am on their call list as >>> someone who gets in the face of the global warming disinformation >>> campaign, among other things. I hit CEI, but I don't have a technical >>> response to their allegations. >>> >>> Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community? >>> Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know >>> exactly what to say. And really I believe all of you, as the >>> authoritative experts, should be prepared to do that in a way that has >>> some collective coherence. >>> >>> I am going to be writing about this on my Climate Science Watch Website >>> as soon as I think I can do so appropriately. I am most interested in >>> what you have to say to set the record straight and put things in >>> perspective -- either on or off the record, whichever you wish. Will >>> someone please explain this to me? >>> >>> Best regrads, >>> Rick >>> >>> >>> *1. CLIMATE: Free-market group attacks data behind EPA >>> 'endangerment' proposal (E&E News PM, 10/07/2009) >>> >>> * >>> >>> >>> *Robin Bravender, E&E reporter* >>> >>> A free-market advocacy group has launched another attack on the science >>> behind U.S. EPA's proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human >>> health and welfare. >>> >>> The Competitive Enterprise Institute -- a vocal foe of EPA's efforts to >>> finalize its "endangerment finding" -- *petitioned* >>> >>> the agency this week to reopen the public comment period on the >>> proposal, arguing that critical data used to formulate the plan have >>> been destroyed and that the available data are therefore unreliable. >>> >>> *At issue is a set of raw data from the Climatic Research Unit at the >>> University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, that includes surface >>> temperature averages from weather stations around the world. *According >>> to CEI, the data provided a foundation for the 1996 second assessment >>> report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which EPA used >>> when drafting its endangerment proposal. >>> >>> According to the Web site for East Anglia's research unit, "Data storage >>> availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the >>> multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after >>> adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the >>> original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and >>> homogenized) data." >>> >>> CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said this lack of raw data calls the >>> endangerment finding into question. *"EPA is resting its case on >>> international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU's >>> suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late >>> date, makes that information totally unreliable," he said.* "If EPA >>> doesn't re-examine the implications of this, it's stumbling blindly into >>> the most important regulatory issue we face." >>> >>> *In a statement filed with CEI's petition, Cato Institute senior fellow >>> Patrick Michaels called the development a "totally new element" in the >>> endangerment debate. "It violates basic scientific principles and throws >>> even more doubt onto the contention that anthropogenic greenhouse gas >>> emissions endanger human welfare," he wrote. >>> >>> *Michaels is a University of Virginia professor and author of the book, >>> "The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming." He stepped >>> down from his post as Virginia's state climatologist in 2007 after he >>> came under fire for publicly doubting global warming while taking money >>> from the utility industry (/ Greenwire/ >>> , Sept. 27, 2007). >>> >>> Representatives of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit were >>> not available to comment on the CEI petition. >>> >>> EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the agency will evaluate the petition. >>> "But after initial review of the statement their position rests upon," >>> Andy added, "it certainly does not appear to justify upheaval." >>> >>> The petition is the latest in a string of CEI challenges to the >>> proceedings surrounding the endangerment finding and other Obama >>> administration climate policies. Last week, the group threatened to sue >>> the administration over documents related to the costs of a federal >>> cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And in June, the >>> group accused EPA officials of suppressing dissenting views from an EPA >>> environmental economist during the run-up to the release of the >>> endangerment proposal. >>> >>> Rick Piltz, director of the watchdog group Climate Science Watch and a >>> former official at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, said that >>> although the research unit's data are among key data sets used by the >>> IPCC, "it's not the only data set that they use." He also said EPA drew >>> on "multifaceted, robust" data in the technical support document >>> underlying the finding. >>> >>> EPA's endangerment finding relies most heavily on IPCC's 2007 fourth >>> assessment; synthesis and assessment products of the U.S. Climate Change >>> Science Program; National Research Council reports under the U.S. >>> National Academy of Sciences; the EPA annual report on U.S. greenhouse >>> gas emission inventories; and the EPA assessment of the effects of >>> global change on regional U.S. air quality, according to the agency's >>> technical support document. >>> >>> "You do not need to reopen the IPCC reports and the technical support >>> document on the EPA endangerment finding because of something having to >>> do with the raw data from the temperature record from East Anglia >>> University in the 1980s," Piltz said, adding that the IPCC carefully >>> vets its data. >>> >>> Piltz said CEI is on an ideological mission to head off EPA attempts to >>> finalize the endangerment finding and is "grasping at straws" by >>> challenging the IPCC data. >>> >>> "Their bottom line is an antiregulatory ideology," Piltz said. "When >>> they use science, they use it tactically, and they will go to war with >>> the mainstream science community." >>> >>> Republican senators also weighed in yesterday, urging EPA to reopen the >>> public comment period on the endangerment finding to investigate the >>> scientific merit of the research data. >>> >>> "It's astonishing that EPA, so confident in the scientific integrity of >>> its work, refuses to be transparent with the public about the most >>> consequential rulemaking of our time," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), >>> ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe >>> sent a joint press release with Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) accusing EPA >>> of relying upon flawed data. >>> >>> "Now the evidence shows that scientists interested in testing some of >>> EPA's assertions can't engage in basic scientific work, such as assuring >>> reproducibility and objectivity, because the data they seek have been >>> destroyed," Inhofe said. "In order to conform to federal law and basic >>> standards of scientific integrity, EPA must reopen the record so the >>> public can judge whether EPA's claims are based on the best available >>> scientific information." >>> >>> Rick Piltz >>> Director, Climate Science Watch >>> 301-807-2472 >>> www.**climatesciencewatch.org >>> >>> Climate Science Watch is a >>> sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, Washington, >>> DC, dedicated to holding public officials accountable for using climate >>> science and related research effectively and with integrity in >>> responding to the challenges posed by global climate disruption. >>> >>> The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal >>> any part of what one has recognized to be true. >>> --Albert Einstein >>> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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) 422-3840 >> FAX: (925) 422-7675 >> email: santer1@llnl.gov >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ----------------------------------------------------------------------------