Climategate 3.0: Jones advises Mann and others on FOIA requests — ‘Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!’

“Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

The e-mail is below.

###

cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
from: Phil Jones

subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE
SECRET DATA
to: mann@virginia.edu
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can
use
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower
troposphere
rather than surface data !. Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg
et al used the
Jones and Moberg updated series !
Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks.
He stressed
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo
didn’t bother
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking
similar
to MBH.
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
Cheers
Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information
Act !
X-Sender: f023@pop.uea.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.0.6
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +0000
To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Subject: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE
SECRET DATA
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:02:37 -0000
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: pressure grows on climate modellers to relase secret data
Thread-Index: AcUXiV64e/f3Ii8uQSa0X88pndSQgQAl2O1w
From: “Peiser, Benny”
To: “cambridge-conference”
X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
CCNet 22/2005 – 21 February 2005
PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
——————————————————————–
This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, Mr. Mann
tried
to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by
which
he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish
a
retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical
methods
have since grown.
–The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and
McIntyre
says is Mann’s resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds
his
data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his code. So this is
what I
say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give
up your
data, methods and code freely and with a smile on your face.
–Kevin Vranes, Science Policy, 18 February 2005
Mann’s work doesn’t meet that definition [of science], and those who use
Mann’s
curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of
Pournelle’s