cc: "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" <B.Summers@uea.ac.uk>,  "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" <A.Preece@uea.ac.uk>
date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:37:59 +0100
from: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" <T.D.Davies@uea.ac.uk>
subject: RE: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis  spreads
to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>, "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" <k319@uea.ac.uk>, "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" <K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk>

Phil

I shouldn't correspond with Robinson if I were you. I think the right approach is to remain aloof & not get dragged into an argy-bargy - which is what they want. When there is clearly something libellous, as in the Spectator, we should respond (as we have done) in a low key way. I now hope that our solicitor will see it in the clear-cut way in which I interpret that nature and the falsity of the accusation.

We should continue to remain "above it" as much as we can.

Trevor 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:41 PM
>To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)
>Cc: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); Summers Brian Mr (REG); Preece 
>Alan Mr (MAC)
>Subject: Re: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
>
>  Annie,
>     Keith's response is almost written. He is just awaiting for one 
>piece of additional information from the Russians. Hopefully this 
>will be up by the end of the week.
>
>     Thanks for following up with the Spectator.
>
>     If you want me to email this David Robinson then I can do. It is 
>difficult to stop this sort of rubbish spreading across the internet. 
>No CRU work is flawed. If it hadn't been this issue then it would 
>have been something else. They are just getting at us because we are 
>not responding to them.
>
>    I have been to a couple of meetings recently - a summer school in 
>Italy early last week and a meeting at the Royal Society last 
>Thursday. There were no comments or discussions about the issue. The 
>only time the issue was raised was over a coffee, and then it was 
>people wishing us well and wondering how we put up with it.  Climate 
>scientists know it is all rubbish. As they told me, science is done 
>through publications, not via blog sites.
>
>   I'd expect that we will reopen all these blog sites once something 
>goes up on the CRU site.
>
>  Maybe when it all dies down later in the year, UEA/ENV/CRU need to 
>consider what we have learned from the alleged scandal. Should we 
>have responded differently, for example, and if so how? At the 
>moment, I don't see how we could have responded any 
>differently.  Despite all the publicity, there are at least 3 people 
>in the US who have had it much worse than us and they are still 
>writing normal papers in the literature.
>
>  Cheers
>  Phil
>
>
>At 15:16 20/10/2009, Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) wrote:
>>Dear Phil and Keith,
>>Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP environment 
>>correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing about it (true, as 
>>he has just returned from China).
>>
>>I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees any 
>>problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how anything is 
>>phrased and issuing a statement along the following lines. (I think 
>>the last line would have to come directly from you Keith)
>>
>>For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter. I have 
>>rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been opened) and 
>>emailed.  Solicitor is now looking closely at the piece in the 
>>Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter.
>>Best, Annie
>>
>>
>>Draft statement
>>Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa  deliberately selected 
>>tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of recent dramatic 
>>warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia is completely 
>>false.  A full rebuttal is published on the Climatic Research 
>Unit's website.
>>
>>This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site -  a site 
>>for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve McIntyre, has 
>>produced an alternative history of tree-growth changes in the Yamal 
>>region by substituting some of the data used in Prof Briffa's 
>>published and peer-reviewed analysis, with recent data from a more 
>>localised origin than the data analysed by Prof Briffa.  While 
>>McIntyre's selection produces a different result, it cannot be 
>>considered to be more authoritative.
>>
>>This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the 
>>Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the 
>>Copenhagen climate talks.
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------
>>Annie Ogden, Head of Communications,
>>University of East Anglia,
>>Norwich, NR4 7TJ.
>>Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764
>>www.uea.ac.uk/comm
>>............................................
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO)
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:40 PM
>>To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)
>>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>>
>>  Here it is Annie
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Greaves, Tara [mailto:Tara.Greaves@archant.co.uk]
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:11 PM
>>To: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO)
>>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>>
>>Also, do you know anything about this?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: David_Robinson [mailto:darobin@netcomuk.co.uk]
>>Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45
>>To: newsdesk@archant.co.uk
>>Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>>
>>Sir,
>>I draw your attention to the growing international climate change 
>>scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the reputation of it, 
>>and Norfolk, through the mud.
>>
>>After several weeks of open criticism of the  use of a particular, 
>>alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no attempted rebuttle 
>>by the CRU. Latest information suggests that dozens of 'peer 
>>reviewed' scientific papers that relied on the same dataset are now 
>>'similarly flawed' and should be withdrawn. This, unfortunately, 
>>draws into question a fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion - 
>>namely, whether the recent global warming is in fact abnormal and 
>>hence attributable to man.
>>
>>I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject profoundly 
>>worrying given the importance of the topic.
>>
>>Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be greatly in 
>>the public interest, especially given the Copenhagen summit 
>fast approaching.
>>
>>David Robinson
>>
>>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374#comments
>>---
>>Sent via BlackBerry
>>David Robinson MSc
>>Blacklock and Bowers Limited
>>
>>This email and any attachments to it are confidential and intended 
>>solely for the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed.
>>You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments in 
>>whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The views 
>>expressed in them are those of the individual author and do not 
>>necessarily represent the views of this Company.
>>
>>Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a virus 
>>we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and you should 
>>take all steps that you can to protect your systems against viruses.
>>
>>Archant Regional Limited, is registered in England under Company 
>>Registration Number 19300, and the Registered Office is Prospect 
>>House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.
>
>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 
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------                                                  
>                               
>
>
