“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
Mike, Ray and Malcolm,
The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here ! Maybe we can
this to our advantage to get the series updated !
Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower
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.
that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo
with that. Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 220.127.116.11
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:40:05 +0000
From: Keith Briffa
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Subject: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:02:37 -0000
Thread-Topic: pressure grows on climate modellers to relase secret data
From: “Peiser, Benny”
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
to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by
he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish
retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical
have since grown.
–The Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2005
But maybe we are in that much trouble. The WSJ highlights what Regaldo and
says is Mann’s resistance or outright refusal to provide to inquiring minds
data, all details of his statistical analysis, and his code. So this is
say to Dr. Mann and others expressing deep concern over peer review: give
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
curve in their arguments are not making a scientific argument. One of