Climategate 2.0: Briffa gets to review his own work?

Revkin wants to know if that’s a “potential conflict of interest”.

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, New York Times “reporter” Andy Revkin e-mails East Anglia’s Keith Briffa:

couple thoughts via Mann>
1) he says [Van Storch] et al selected both a model that is an outlier (more sensitivitiy) and forcings (solar etc) that are 2 times the norm accepted by most folks assessing paleo-versus-recent variability.

2) he also says that if this higher level of sensitivity is correct, this means that anthropogenic forcing almost assuredly will produce even MORE warming than IPCC projections etc. ( my reading of your commentary is that you agree; is that a correct conclusion?)

And a question from me

Is it correct that you are involved directly with modeling studies with von storch et al via EU?

If so, does that present any potential conflict of interest (in terms of having you review their work?)?

thanks for a call or email!

Andrew

We don’t know how Briffa responded because the Climategate e-mail elves only captured e-mails, not phone calls.

The full e-mail is below.
——————————————————
date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:52:15 -0400
from: Andy Revkin
subject: couple things..
to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

again, hoping to talk to you tuesday if at all possible.
i’ll be at 845 424 3530 (ny state) in a.m. east-coast time (home office).
couple thoughts via Mann>
1) he says VS et al selected both a model that is an outlier (more
sensitivitiy) and forcings (solar etc) that are 2 times the norm accepted
by most folks assessing paleo-versus-recent variability.
2) he also says that if this higher level of sensitivity is correct, this
means that anthropogenic forcing almost assuredly will produce even MORE
warming than IPCC projections etc. ( my reading of your commentary is that
you agree; is that a correct conclusion?)
And a question from me>
Is it correct that you are involved directly with modeling studies with von
storch et al via EU?
If so, does that present any potential conflict of interest (in terms of
having you review their work?)?
thanks for a call or email!
Andrew C. Revkin, Environment Reporter, The New York Times
229 West 43d St. NY, NY 10036
Tel: 212-556-7326, Fax: 509-357-0965 (via www.efax.com, received as email)

3 thoughts on “Climategate 2.0: Briffa gets to review his own work?”

  1. Here is a list of stories Revkin submitted just prior and after this exchange:

    September 24, 2004 – Antarctic Glaciers Quicken Pace to Sea; Warming Is Cited
    September 30, 2004 – Global Warming Is Expected to Raise Hurricane Intensity
    October 1, 2004 – With Russia’s Nod, Treaty on Emissions Clears Last Hurdle
    October 5, 2004 – New Research Questions Uniqueness of Recent Warming
    October 8, 2004 – National Briefing | Science And Health: Record Number Of Tornadoes
    October 19, 2004 – Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue
    October 26, 2004 – NASA Expert Criticizes Bush on Global Warming Policy
    October 30, 2004 – Big Arctic Perils Seen in Warming, Survey Finds
    November 3, 2004 – World Briefing | Europe: Italy: Venice Is Flooded
    November 9, 2004 – As the Arctic Warms

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/andrew_c_revkin/index.html?offset=825&s=oldest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.