From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
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 <wigley@ucar.edu>
     User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421)
     To: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
     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

