Meanwhile, I've been continuing my gentle graze around the e-mails, looking at references to climate skeptics. There are no smoking guns, or earth-shattering discoveries (yet), but the impression is reinforced of a climate science community feeling itself under pressure, looking over its shoulders all the way at what the skeptics are doing.
Here is the latest sample:
0636 Mike Hulme to "fast trackers". 21 April 1999The last comment is so revealing. It is the first reference to "deniers", and it is obvious that to be one is to "misinterpret". No quarter can be given, no good faith can be assumed. That is what "deniers" do.
"If you believe the economic skeptics then any climate policy will have a detrimental effect on world production …"
0697 Michael E. Mann to Keith Briffa and others. 23 September 1999
"So, if we show Keith's series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being "warmer" than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates".
0716 Michael E. Mann to Tom Crowley and Phil Jones, re . Soon & Baliunas. 12 March 2003
"With their LIA being 1300-1900 and their MWP, here appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged".
0717 Phil Jones to Michael E Mann. 17 September 1998
The modelling community leaders are probably about as skeptical about our paleo-reconstructions as we are of their sulphate aerosol parameterizations, flux corrections (or more worrying, supposed lack thereof in some cases!), and handling of the oh-so-important tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere interface ... So my personal philosophy is that more than one side here can benefit from extending the olive branch, and there are a few individuals in the modeling community who could benefit from slowing down on the stone throwing from their fragile glass tower :)
0728 Mike MacCracken to Phil Jones. 27 August 2009
There were indeed a number of Skeptics, but also a lot of people across the disciplines eager for information, and of course impressed by IPCC. Were no one like me there to keep going after the Skeptics and talking to the others in the in between times, they would, it seems to me, be more likely to think there is something serious about the opposition of the Skeptics - but the way it came off, with me going after Zichichi and his skepticism, I think was helpful to the others.
0800 Phil Jones to Chris Folland. 2 January 2008
Could add a website in the press release that appears on the Met Office site to a web site where the earlier forecasts might be accessible? This isn't essential - it is just that the skeptics won't believe your 0.07 accuracy number. If a page was mentioned it might shut them up - unlikely I know!
0900 Jonathan Overpeck to Darrell Kaufman, re your Science manuscript. 28 May 2009
This paper is going to get the attention of the skeptics and they are going to get all the data and work hard to show were we messed up. We don't want this - especially you, since it could take way more of your time than you'd like, and it'll look bad.
0914 Shaopeng Huang to Phil Jones. 3 March 2000
I'm still reminded by the potential effects of land-use changes, principally in the eastern US, which could be making your North American series too cool. I realise you've taken great care with the selection, but this is a nagging doubt and will be picked up by the few skeptics trying to divide us all about the course of change over the last millennium.
0952 David Rind to Stefan Rahmstorf. 20 July 2005
There is a quantum difference between the fundamental approaches - it is not a continuum, in which there are no real differences, everything is simply a matter of opinion, there is no such thing as truth - that's the argument that greenhouse skeptics use to try to make science go away.
1071 Ben Santer to Phil Jones. 7 September 2007
Skeptics, deniers are talking things up a lot lately - misinterpreting as usual and accepting what some papers say too readily.
COMMENT: "CLIMATEGATE II" THREAD