cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
date: Sun, 11 May 2008 18:21:54 +0100 (BST)
from: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk
subject: Re: Climate Audit and the Appendix Figure from Wengen
to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk

Phil

will check with John re the status of the reviewing.

 I am pretty confused now about my response to Holland, in the light of
Susan's recent pronouncement on the matter. I have the response fully
drafted and was waiting for opinions from you both - but now, even though
I have told Holland that I will respond , I am now considering whether to
do as Susan says and simply reply that the published information is the
"appropriate" source of further study of the devlopment of the AR4 , and
that I now consider it "inappropriate" for me to comment in any further
detail. What do you think? I rather liked my responses!

Keith

>  Keith, Tim,
>    CA are getting close to finding what the IPCC figure
>  from 1990 is based upon. They haven't found the original
>  source, nor any of the CRU pubs that show Lamb is wrong
>  anyway.
>    It is really quite amusing reading a few of the comments.
>  McIntyre's about figuring out how Lamb produced his
>  error bars should be put up on a wall!!
>     #50 and the link to Crispin Tickell's web page is
>  interesting - back to BAS pub. If you have time can you
>  follow this one up.  I think CA have the dates wrong
>  and this should be after 1989.
>
>    Also seems that CA readers don't understand what 'schematic'
>  means.
>
>   Maybe you could contact Matthews to see where the reviews are?
>
>  I was alerted to CA by Gavin and Mike.
>
>  At KNMI all week.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>


