From: Phil Jones To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Subject: Message from Tom Wigley Date: Mon Oct 5 11:35:44 2009 Keith, Here's a message from Tom. It might be worth sending anything you've got to him to have a look through. Shorter responses are probably better. Detail can go in a poster. Pointing out how often or not Yamal is used is useful. I don't think they have done this. I think many people confuse this with the polar urals chronology. That is different and it is based on density. M&M rely on people not checking. Cheers Phil Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:57:57 -0600 From: Tom Wigley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.30 () [Hold at 5.00] PORN_RP_NASTY,SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 32219749 - e7f62debf1d6 X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Phil, It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go -- complex and wordy responses will be counter productive). But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology? Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of. And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden. I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together. Tom. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- References 1. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=f 2. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=n 3. https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=32219749&m=e7f62debf1d6&c=s