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.
Lord Lawson of Blaby is wading into this debate through his column in The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
“I am announcing today the launch of a new high-powered all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org), which I hope may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy. At the very least, open and reasoned debate on this issue cannot be anything but healthy. The absence of debate between political parties at the present time makes our contribution all the more necessary.”
At least he should have some power to raise the issue in UK political circles, at least in the Conservative party.
The main German weekly, “Der Spiegel”, has a piece here:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,662673,00.html
Underneath some ostentatious impartiality – it does say that it presents the characters of the individuals involved in a less than positive light – it’s actually rather one-sided: it doesn’t mention at all the issue of FOI requests, and overall it tries to play down the issue even as it reports it.
I spent some of today on a site called liberalconspiracy opposing the justification of the Climategate emails.
My favourites were
People are too badly educated to understand the data.
The data can be protected because it is like the recipe for KFC.
Any other suggestions for best Climategate excuse?
Here’s another recent bit of interesting chit-chat regarding McIntyre, National Review, and a special concern about potential funding requested from a big German company that may be affected by the scandal involving selected tree-ring-data alleged by McIntyre. I wonder what “projections” are being referred to in para. 1. below that are being made with “climate models” rather than “observed data.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Browse by 10 | 25 | 50 | 100
From: Phil Jones To: Andrew Manning Subject: Re: Fwd: Co2 Data Date: Tue Oct 6 08:38:04 2009
Andrew,
Getting a bit fed up with these baseless allegations.
You could point out several things to Martin.
1. Projections aren’t made with observed data – instrumental or paleo. They are made with
climate models.
2. The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are
quite clever and don’t go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review,
the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones.
Here is what Stephen McIntyre says on Climate Audit.
“While there is much to criticise in the handling of this data by the authors and the
journals, the results do not in any way show that ‘AGW is a fraud’ nor that this particular
study was a ‘fraud’.
McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC
won’t be able to assess any of it unless he does.
You dad and Susan Solomon have had runs in with him and others
3. You might like to send him this pdf and its Figure 2. Three different groups get much
the same result.
Here are the two web pages we have put up so far. Keith is working on the tree one and
put much more later in the week.
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/
So other groups around the world have also entered into agreements. I know this doesn’t
make it right, but it is the way of the world with both instrumental and paleo data. I
frequently try and get data from other people without success, sometimes from people who
send me the pdf of their paper then tell me they can’t send me the series in their plots.
[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2000/
It is the right wing web sites doing all this, presumably in the build up to Copenhagen.
At 00:13 06/10/2009, Andrew Manning wrote:
Hi Phil,
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I’m
in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million
employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here
in the UK – looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into
question (again) observed temperature increases – I thought we’d moved the debate beyond
this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,
Andrew
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:50:38 +0100
Subject: Co2 Data
From: Martin Lutyens
To: Andrew Manning
Dear Andrew,
I just came across an article in The Week, called “The case of the vanishing data”. It
writes in a rather wry and sceptical way about your UEA colleagues Phil Jones and Tom
Wigley , saying that only their “homogenised” or “adjusted” historical data is
available, and the original, raw data has gone missing. Apparently some other
environmental gurus now want to look at the original data and were “fobbed off”.
According to the article, the adjusted data forms the basis for much of the climate
change debate and , because others now want to look at the source data, it is “at the
centre of an academic spat that could have major implications for the climate change
debate”. The author of the original article is Patrick Michaels in The National Review,
who may just be stirring it.
The article concludes “In short, the data invoked to verify the most significant
forecasts about the world’s future, have simply vanished.” Could you comment on this
please, as someone (eg Siemens Corp.) may pick this up and I think we should all be
forearmed by knowing what really happened and what to say if asked.
Many thanks, Martin
—
Martin Lutyens
I read here that many commenters doubt that their governmental representation will take action.
My perspective is a bit different. There is blood in the water and substantial doubt on the wind. There is enough info online for governmental review of suspected emails, documents, data and models. In the USA, they won’t play games; they’ll subpeona entire email directories and sources. Woe if any are missing.
What’s to prove? It’s a NO LOSE situation for any government rep. If they prove good intentions, good science and good scientists everyone wins! If they find bad intentions, fraud, consipiracy, racketeering, misuse of official positions, or any of dozens of other possibilities the reps will go for the throat and everyone wins! There are District Attorneys in the USA who are looking to further their political careers who should be salivating at this opportunity (think NewYork).
After all, prove the science and scientists correct and everyone wins; prosecute to the fullest extent any law breaking, remove the guilty and install new people and everyone wins! Either way the government reps look great. Representatives, Senators and prosecutors can go their entire career without such a great opportunity.
Now if someone cracks under prosecution and provides gory details while pleading for a lighter sentence, well who’s to say where this investigation can go.
So write to your government representatives of any party! Mention how good they will look at re-election time when they fix any problems identified.
To follow on to my earlier suggestion that personal letters to Chancellor Gough at University of East Anglia with copies to Charles Clarke MP for Norwich, calling for a full investigation, is a good start.
The University is ultimately responsible to British Parliament and citizens for the behavior of its employees. As Dr. Phil Jones is an employee and the author of many of the most troubling emails – a call for a full, open investigation is prudent. I would suggest that letters insist that the unethical behavior of CRU employees jeopardizes the integrity and prestige of the University in the eyes of the world. Swift action to investigate is in the interest of good science, the University, and the British public.
As the Chancellor and MP Clarke are both public servants I will list their emails here:
clarkec@parliament.uk
Gough’s contacts:
jennifer.jones@uea.ac.uk,
C.Kreetzer@uea.ac.uk
Just The Facts (13:38:34) :
That article should start to sow some seeds of doubt in the money men’s minds and put the cat among the financial pigeons.
Or are you seriously arguing that we do away with the concept of private communication?
Actually, under the Freedom of Information Act, no one working for the government can expect that their communication is private communication. This makes your analogy to a business incorrect.
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.
April – Neither the email accounts nor the computers were Government property. Accessing any computer system without authorisation is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, punishable by 6 months imprisonment.
just to let you know that the mainstream media in Australia have caught on to the story and it made the front page of our national newspaper The Australian today.
At last, the BBC has broadcast a TV snippet on this, but only on the East Anglian regional news.
It showed a demonstration by the usual crowd of eco warriors demonstrating against the hacker/whistleblower with placards and chanting outside the UEA campus building, today. They had a couple of middle aged protesters, voicing their outrage at this attack against such a great cause. They then produced a disgraced ex MP for Norwich, (he was caught in the MPs expenses scandal and resigned earlier in the year). A well known climate campaigner, he said that the emails proved nothing wrong had been done by the scientists and he believed they were honest men. He added that he totally believed in global warning.
There was no mention of the content of the emails in the broadcast except to say they were on the internet and some people were saying that the scientists had been massaging the data.
I dont think you will convince these people of anything. In this country (UK) the science really is closed.
Well done, your Grace. Dr Slop’s prediction for the revelation with most immediate consequences: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=903&filename=1213201481.txt
If it’s correct to read the emails as reverse chronological order, then:
Mann wants to propose Jones for an AGU fellowship and solicits data including Jones’ “H-index”, apparently a measure of citation count/impact.
Jones replies that, if you don’t correct for the fact that Jones is a very common surname, the figure is 62. If you do correct (as one obviously should), the figure is 52.
Mann replies (line 83 or thereabouts): “OK–thanks, I’ll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.”
Impressive, but wrong. I mean, Old Chap, it’s one thing to try to fool the public, but to try to fool one’s own club …
****************************
Phil Clarke (15:19:42) :
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.
April – Neither the email accounts nor the computers were Government property. Accessing any computer system without authorisation is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, punishable by 6 months imprisonment.
************************
1. UEA gets the majority of their money from the British Government, i.e. from the Citizens of Britain.
2. There are IT system administrators who have legal access to computer systems and can see emails and data.
3. The is also the FIOA, which certainly the scientists knew about.
Therefore, as I said, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. UAE and the British Government own the equipment and the data. Of course it is a crime to hack into the system, but that will have to be pursued via legal channels. Also, it does not excuse the behavior of these people one whit.
Phil Clarke (14:41:17) :
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.”
Simply wrong? Instead of using your claim of working for a UK U, why not support that with a real reference? You’d be wrong in the US which laws and policies have came about for good reason.
There’s also the problem with your claim about a “pure and simple” case of theft. No whistle-blowers allowed? That the police are alleged to be investigating does not evidence a plain and simple theft.
http://www.roydens.co.uk/content40.htm
I am getting a lot of laughs out of the rampant denial by the AGW faithful. Just remember this is just stage one. Stage two is anger and when they can no longer deny AGW has a deadly cancer, those most faithful will be leading the charge to have the culprits severely punished.
BTW, it doesn’t matter if various offices try to cover this up. There are millions of skeptics based on the polls. Whenever anyone attempts to claim AGW is still valid, they will be faced with quotes from these emails. They will have no legitimate response. In fact, anyone who attempts to cover this up is just throwing away their own careers.
Time is on the side of the skeptics.
Phil Clarke (15:19:42) :
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.
April – Neither the email accounts nor the computers were Government property. Accessing any computer system without authorisation is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, punishable by 6 months imprisonment.
Quite right Phil. Whoever put the FOIA zip out into the wild is very very naughty. 🙂
I would expect that if caught, they would attempt a force majeure defense, citing the criminal, unethic and immoral acts they were exposing.
I’m reminded of the Burglar who dobbed in the child pornographer with the video player and recordings he stole.
This whole thing has taught me that there are liars, damn liars, and modern day climatologists.
[REPLY – Liars, damnliars, and outliers. ~ Evan]
From: Phil Jones
To: Gil Compo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. The rest is in your Co2 increases.
Cheers
Phil
Gil,
These will do for my purpose. I won’t pass them on. I am looking forward to the draft
paper. As you’re fully aware you’re going to have to go some ways to figuring out what’s
causing the differences.
You will have to go down the sub-sampling, but I don’t think it is going to make much
difference. [b}The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know.[/b] You ought
to include the NCDC dataset as well.
[1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html the ERSST3b dataset.
In the lower two plots there appear to be two types of differences, clearer in the
NH20-70 land domain.
The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a single year (like a year in the last 1960s, 1967
or 1968) and then when it differs for about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps coming
back. For individual years there are a couple of years in the first decade of the 20th
century (the 1900s).
The longer periods are those you’ve noticed – the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also
something up with the period 1955-65 and the 1970s. The 1920s seems to get back then go off
again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best thing to try and isolate some of the reasons
would be maps for decades or individual years. For the 1920s I’d expect the differences to
be coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I think the 1890s might be just down to
sparser coverage. The 1890s is the only period where the difference brings your pink line
back towards the long-term zero. All the others have the pink line more extreme than the
HadCRUT3/GISS average.
Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned this to him. He suggested maps of data input
during these times. He also suggested looking at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey
spread is sort of this, but this is a different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you
might have?
[b]One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be
changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45.[/b] There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues.
Once again thanks for these! Hoping you’ll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!
Cheers
Phil
Pragmatic (15:08:49) :
To follow on to my earlier suggestion that personal letters to Chancellor Gough at University of East Anglia with copies to Charles Clarke MP for Norwich, calling for a full investigation, is a good start.
The University is ultimately responsible to British Parliament and citizens for the behavior of its employees. As Dr. Phil Jones is an employee and the author of many of the most troubling emails – a call for a full, open investigation is prudent. I would suggest that letters insist that the unethical behavior of CRU employees jeopardizes the integrity and prestige of the University in the eyes of the world. Swift action to investigate is in the interest of good science, the University, and the British public.
As the Chancellor and MP Clarke are both public servants I will list their emails here:
clarkec@parliament.uk
Gough’s contacts:
jennifer.jones@uea.ac.uk,
C.Kreetzer@uea.ac.uk
Good call. I’d add that contacting the Vice Chancellor of UEA might work well, since Phil Jones implicated him in the FOI stonewalling.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/vco/people/churchill is the VC’s PA.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=941&filename=1228412429.txt
> When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
> by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a
> screen, to convince them otherwise
> showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the
> types of people we were
> dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the
> Environmental Sciences school
> – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve
> got to know the FOI
> person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals.
> The VC is also
> aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but
> probably doesn’t know
> the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.
>
Nice article by Nigel Lawson in the London Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
Phil Clarke, exposing fraud and political manipulation of government policies and funding is certainly a moral justification for breach of privacy – whether UK law, which notoriously grovels to official secrecy by the bureaucracy and executive, recognizes that or not.
Neil Crafter (15:29:33) :
just to let you know that the mainstream media in Australia have caught on to the story and it made the front page of our national newspaper The Australian today.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hackers-expose-climate-brawl/story-e6frg6nf-1225801879912
Excellent article!
Now this is very, very, odd
Alleged CRU Email – 1151689605.txt
This is an email from Valérie Masson-Delmotte and contains reviewers comments. no big deal; except that the reviewers names are supplied in the email as well as the ID code.
From: Valérie Masson-Delmotte
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: warning – more reviews for you
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:46:45 +0200
Reply-to: Valerie.Masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Keith,
I hope that you had a good trip back from Bergen.
Some of the review comments which appeared to be relevant for the
Holocene section are yours. I copy them here so that you can take there
of them.
All the best,
Valérie.
6-687
Replace “limiting the vallue” on line 18 to “review as a” on line 19 by
“which means there is no legitimate”
[VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer�s comment ID #: 88-774)]
Fig. 6.10a. Rather than showing the average of 4 European stations I
suggest to plot the available…………………………………………………
[Jürg Luterbacher (Reviewer�s comment ID #: 151-8)]
Fig 6.10. I here repeat a point made in my comments on the FOD. ………………….
[Ross McKitrick (Reviewer�s comment ID #: 174-35)]
Did the leader of a section of IPCC AR4 supply the names of the reviewers as well as their ID code or was this a normal part of the process?
For Nick Stokes,
We expect you to startapologising and making small corrections, some of which you observe correctly.
However, looking at the braoder picture, you must have some concern about scientific integrity. I have already nominated the email that I found most worying, 1228330629.txt
Why don’t you show us the cut of your jib by nominating the email that you find most worrying to you? In other words, be proactive rather than reactive.
Don’t you know that “beat the crap out of” is a euphemism that scientists often use meaning “to pursuade another to change his opinion by rational argument”?
Sentence? At most the FOIA violation is punishable by fine, I believe.