For those of you who don’t know of the blog Bishop Hill, let me say that he is a succinct and careful writer who has earned praise from many (including myself and Steve McIntyre) in taking a difficult niche subject such as the Hockey Stick and paleoclimatology and condensed into into a readable form for the layman. He’s also writing a book about it called: The Hockey Stick Illusion
In his latest post, Climate Cuttings 33, he gives a list of interesting issues he’s identified. I’ve reproduced it below for WUWT readers to consider. Be sure to visit his blog and have a look and drop an encouraging word. – Anthony
If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.
General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.
In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.
- Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
- Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
- Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
- Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
- Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
- Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
- Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
- Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
- Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
- Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
- Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
- Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
- Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
- Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
- Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
- Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
- Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
- Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
- Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
- Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
- Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
- Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
- Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
- Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
- Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
- Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
- Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
- Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]
- Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
- Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
- Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
- Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
- Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
- Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
- Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
- Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
- Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
- Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
- Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
- Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
- Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
- Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
- Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
- David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
- Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
- Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
- Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
Sponsored IT training links:
If looking for 646-205 exam help then head to 350-030 training program for guaranteed success and get free download link for next 640-863 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re my post at 10:26:42, I’ve established that the emails were deleted following a request from David Palmer.
David, if you’re reading this: if you’re not already filing a formal complaint of criminal deletion to the Information Commissioner, I’m happy to help you do that. I’m a Brit and have had several dealings with the FOIA.
“So whatever conclusions are drawn, are drawn from the subset of the mail that the thief wants you to see, not ‘the whole truth’.”
Don’t be pathetic. The entire conversation between these conspirators is about hiding information from outsiders and allowing only one perspective to be publicly visible.
P Wilson (12:35:49) :
Phil Clarke
I’m not so sure.. Certainly, 10 years ago Mann and Jones were at loggerheads with Briffa 10 years ago, that tree rings could be shown as a proxy to demonstrate a cooler MWP – Briffa complains of the pressure he is under to do the same. Looks to me like he finally succumbed.
Its there:
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt
Yes, there was some argument in 1999, when MBH was new, and the AR3 was being put together. It was hashed out, and the result is in Sec 2.3.2.2 of the AR3, which seems to fairly represent both viewpoints. Briffa was not steamrolled. Fig 2.21 compares the Mann curve with the higher curves of Jones et al and Briffa. The enail discussion seemed constructive, and the outcome reasonable.
Nick Stokes (12:47:03) :
“Maybe that was incorrect. It’s been there in the literature for eight years for people to argue with. AFAIK, no-one has.”
In that case you don’t know much. “The divergence problem”, and the fact that as long as it isn’t understood treering proxies are essentially useless as climate proxies has been discussed quite a lot.
Here is another one where a tax avoidance scheme is proposed.
They should be reported to the IRS.
Original Filename: 826209667.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: “Tatiana M. Dedkova”
To: K.Briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: schijatov
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500
Dear Keith, March 6, 1996
I and Eugene received your E-mail of 04.03.1996. This day I talked
over the telephone with Eugene and he asked me to send an answer from
both of us.
Thank you for the information concerning proposals to the
INCO/COPERNICUS. We agree with your strategy used and we hope
that this proposal will not be rejected.
The results of INTAS-RFBR proposal will be known at the beginning
of May. We know that they received many proposals and a competition
is high (only 1 in 10 proposals might get money). Of course, you
included in as a participant. Fritz is a coordinator from the INTAS
countries.
This year our laboratory received two small grants (approximately
8,000-10,000 USD per year) from the Russian Foundation of Basic
Researches (RFBR) for the next three years: the first one for
developing the Yamal supra-long chronology and the second one for
developing tree-ring chronologies from living trees growing at the
polar timberline in Siberia (together with Vaganov’s laboratory).
These money are very important for us as they will allow to maintain
the staff of our laboratories.
I and Valery Mazepa were in Krasnoyarsk during one month and
together with E.Vaganov wrote the manuscript of book “Dendroclimatic
Studies in the Ural-Siberian Subarctic”. The problem now is to find
money for its publication. If we find enough money soon (20 million
roubles), the book will be published this autumn. We analysed 61 mean
ring-width and 6 cell chronologies which we intend to publish in form
of tables in the Appendix. We can send to you all raw measurements
which were used for developing these chronologies.
Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for
collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions.
The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times
during the last some years. That is why it is important for us
to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE
and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please,
inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must
represent you and your administration for these money.
I and Eugene have a possibility to participate in the Cambridge
meeteng in July, but we need extra many and special invitations.
If you do not have enough money to invite both of us, Eugene does
not insist upon this visit.
The best wishes to you and Phil.
Yours sincerely Stepan Shiyatov
UKres (12:28:37) :
Christopher Monckton
Thanks! My email has been sent:
“Lord Monkton,
No doubt you are “on this” as I write. In brief, is there some way you can lead the right legal challenge to UAE CRU and related scientists, be it based on collusion to illegally avoid responding to FOI requests or misuse of (UK) public funds?
Please, if you can, do so.
The mainstream media seems to be giving a big yawn to this situation, other than to express sympathy to UAE CRU and outrage that someone would release such “private” information.
If we are going to have any chance of swaying public opinion to be more skeptical about AGW claims, it won’t be as a result of the mass media impacting public opinion from which there might be some chance politicians would change their views.
I believe the “right” kind of court case might garner enough publicity to get the ball rolling in the right direction, but we need someone to lead the fight who knows what they’re doing and can organize the financial and legal resources that will be necessary.
Please make some public statement soon.
Regards,”
Release the data and methods, Phil. Problem solved/Scientific Method resumed.
Not sure what’s meant by this, as far as their published research goes, all methods and all that data thay may be legally released by UEA, has been. Of the rest – that is the raw station data covered by commercial NDAs with third parties, my understanding is that they are negotiating a way round this.
then Gavin should have nothing to fear and should immediately release ALL the documents, in their context and entirety.
It’s not Gavin’s to release. Even so, – absolutely not. Some seem to have lost sight of the fact that there were personal and private communications, some even marked CONFIDENTIAL, that have been distributed after an illegal act. You don’t ameliorate one crime by committing another. These communications were sent with a perfectly legitimate expectation of privacy, and could and should only be reproduced with the permission of the sender.
Let me give you a concrete example: academic journals generally require that articles for publication have not been distributed elsewhere, if this mail archive contained a paper in an attachment that was about to be submitted and it was reposted on a website, it could well be refused for publication. That’s just nuts.
Or are you seriously arguing that we do away with the concept of private communication? Can you name a single organisation that could operate without it? The University should grant the world an unprotected logon to its mail server? Do you have a work mailbox? Would it be OK for me to go and have a root around in there?
OOPs–I’ve corrected two typos in my first paragraph above:
I think it’s very important that our side avoid overstatement and not make mountains out of molehills. If we do, we’re merely building a strawman for the other side to knock down. In particular, in matters where the other side has wiggle room, such as “contain the MWP,” we should acknowledge up front that it’s a possibility that the suspicious phrase might have an innocent explanation. (For instance, “trick” has an innocent explanation.) Otherwise we’ll come across as untrustworthy–as an intemperate hanging judge. We should temper our prosecutorial zeal with judiciousness.
rbateman (13:07:56) :
“JP Miller (11:53:21) :
Contact the highest ranking GOP representative in the area you live in.”
Thanks, but I live 30 miles south of San Francisco — no GOP reps for miles around…
Still, I’ve written to my Senators and Representative as well as to Sen. Jim Inhofe.
The news is spreading into the markets:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3656847
I’ll be interested to see how the green sector does tomorrow…
I’ve been wondering why the Hadley hacking hasn’t appeared in newpapers here in Oz, apart from isolated columnists such as Andrew Bolt. Perhaps the masses don’t know what Hadley CRU is ?
Heres a PROGRAM THAT CUTS TIMESSERIES AT 1960 as default:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/cutat1960.jpg
Thus Briffas series to 1994 goes only to 1960 in puplic:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/briffaosbornprolonged.jpg
This in connestion with one of the now CLASSIC MAILS:
**************
From: Tim Osborn
To: mann@XXXXXXX.edu,imacadam@XXXXXXXXX.uk
Subject: Briffa et al. series for IPCC figure
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 16:18:29 +0100
Cc: k.briffa@XXXXXX,p.jones@XXXXXX
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven’t put a 40-yr
smoothing through them – I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
**************
vukcevic (12:57:49) :
Two major blogs ‘RealClimate’ and ‘WUWT’ are the most prominent internet discussion platforms currently voicing many views and opinions on the matter of the unauthorized release of emails.
There are scientists of either persuasion attending both blogs. It does not require great deal of courage to express your view publicly to a sympathetic audience. In many authoritarian societies scientists risked frequently not only ‘excommunication’ but personal freedom or even more to stand by their ideas.
Hereby I propose that contributors from both camps ‘RealClimate’ and ‘WUWT’ (using their real names) should be welcomed by moderators to post on the competing blog.
The above will be posted on both ‘RealClimate’ and ‘WUWT’ and I hope the moderators, in the interest of freedom of scientific expression, will publicly issue invitation and welcome the opposition.
Reply: When do we not welcome all views? All we ask is for commenters to behave courteously. ~ ctm
Program i showed was.
\FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\pl_decline_nerc
E.M.Smith (12:36:33) :
“And this seems to be a common theme (no comments allowed)… So… perhaps all it would take is for a few individuals to run a couple of wide open comment sites. Say “notthebbc.wordpress.com” and “openrealclimate.wordpress.com”. As a controversial / interesting article appears on the ’source’ an article linking to it with an open comments section could be created. It ought to take less than 5 minutes per article to set up the “link to foo” with a matching title / URL (modulo the site name) and some keyword text so that the Google search would find both.”
From time to time I’ve read about software that allows the pasting of unauthorized comments onto a blocked-comment target site in a sticky note format. So long as others have the “reader” version of the software (which is free), they can read those comments. If anyone knows more about such programs, he/she should post the info. (This software doesn’t hack into the target site, it just overlays (onscreen) the posts on the comment-software’s comment-mirror site onto the screen of the target site. (I think.))
Here is another interesting email.
Original Filename: 843161829.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Gary Funkhouser
To: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:xxx xxxx xxxx
Keith,
Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central
and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send
it to you.
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought
at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation
even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have
to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be
optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time
collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.
Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like
to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably
someday though.
Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (5xxx xxxx xxxx
fax: (5xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: gary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Nick Stokes (12:47:03) :
Let me get this straight. Nick says that when a data set showed that there was no warming, but in fact the opposite, it is OK to toss out the data so as to “prove” the hypothesis. This is modern science? If it is, Poppycock!
***************************
Phil Clarke (13:24:56) :
Some seem to have lost sight of the fact that there were personal and private communications, some even marked CONFIDENTIAL, that have been distributed after an illegal act. You don’t ameliorate one crime by committing another. These communications were sent with a perfectly legitimate expectation of privacy, and could and should only be reproduced with the permission of the sender.
Let me give you a concrete example: academic journals generally require that articles for publication have not been distributed elsewhere, if this mail archive contained a paper in an attachment that was about to be submitted and it was reposted on a website, it could well be refused for publication. That’s just nuts.
Or are you seriously arguing that we do away with the concept of private communication? Can you name a single organisation that could operate without it? The University should grant the world an unprotected logon to its mail server? Do you have a work mailbox? Would it be OK for me to go and have a root around in there?
*********************
These communications are owned by the British Government, i.e. The British People. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when one is using government-owned equipment. It is most certainly not private.
tty (13:22:24) :
“The divergence problem”, and the fact that as long as it isn’t understood treering proxies are essentially useless as climate proxies has been discussed quite a lot.
Of course. That’s my point. Osborn was saying that he had a divergence problem affecting post-1960 data, which he therefore didn’t use. And no-one argued that he was wrong.
But my key point is that his email just repeats what he said in his paper, but is here represented as a guilty confession.
I think “contain” the MWP means a period of time long enough to include that time period. Innocent. On the other hand, often it was claimed that reconstructions of 1000 yrs were enough to “contain” it but were not really, since at 1000 yrs ago you may only get to the peak, which makes it look like a 1000 year linear cooling trend. Deceptive, but legal.
For the red line problem (hide the divergence) there are two methods that have been used. One is to overlay the temperature data in thick red line which simply covers up the fact that 1) the reconstructions are truncated and 2) some of them are going down and 3) none of them go dramatically up. The second is the use of padding, either by reflecting the proxy or by using instrumental data to obtain a smooth curve that goes all the way to the end year of the study (the latter used also with instrumental data). The latter issue has been autopsied at length at Climate Audit, and the autopsy was ugly.
Diese E-Mail-Konversationen zeigen eine verabscheuenswürdige Sicht der Welt auf, und sind eine Schande für die gesamte Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Wie kann man sich anmaßen, Meinung über Wissenschaft zu stellen? Wie versuchen, mit den billigsten Tricks wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse so sehr zu verändern, nicht einmal nur zu beschönigen? Statistiken zu fälschen, grundlos Menschen zu ächten, der Lächerlichkeit preiszugeben, obwohl jene es sind, die die Wahrheit sagen.
So weit sind wir gesunken. Scheiße!
Nick Stokes (13:21:15)
judging by corrspondences, nope. Briffa was definately hacked off with Mann, and was highly sceptical at the time, as his correspondence reveals a highly skilled and questioning approach to proxies, the MWP and temperatures.
On the basis of this it looks like he was persuaded and cajoled to sell his integrity for his position.
These communications are owned by the British Government, i.e. The British People. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when one is using government-owned equipment. It is most certainly not private.
I am sorry, but that is simply wrong. Copyright of the mails belonged to the University if they contained intellectual property or with the authors if not. I have worked for a UK University and believe me if you raised the proposal that they were a part of, or owned by the Government you’d get short shrift.
Even if the mails had been lifted from a Government mail server, an offence would still have been committed. However you try and spin it, it was theft, pure and simple. The police are now investigating.
The emails and data are the property of the employer, ie, the people. They are not the property of the employees.
I don’t care how many times they wrote “CONFIDENTIAL”, they have no right to expect that their paid time on government owned computers using government owned email accounts belongs to them.
I also recall that on the bottom of several emails was a disclaimer that all emails were subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Well, now they have been freed.
Craig Loehle (14:15:02) :
……….
Mr. Loehle
It is great to see your contribution. I am not certain I am qualified to comment on your post, however in past I have been critical of some of your work. This is extract from one of my posts on WUWT:
“Reference :http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/pdfs/climate-history.pdf
‘correction to: a 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies’(by Craig Loehle)
regarding proxy locations . Out of 15 worldwide locations 8-9 are related to the North Atlantic area. Only 3 are in the Southern Hemisphere, and none in the Western Pacific area. Hardly representative of the world trends. It would be far more useful if Loehle and McCulloch gave data individually for each of 15 locations, then we would have at least a dissent representation of the regional trends. It just shows that producing a global temperature anomaly graph is fraught with danger.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/another-parallel-with-the-maunder-minimum/
If you prefer to respond privately my email is: vukcevicu(at)yahoo.co.uk