cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, p.jones@uea.act.csiro.au, k.briffa@uea.act.csiro.au, d.wratt@niwa.co.nz, andy.reisinger@mfe.govt.nz
date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:41:38 +1000
from: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au
subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate  Rese
to: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate
Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one
who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give
the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge
should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than
publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees
that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of
statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing
the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics,
but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of
stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be
whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously
with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived.

On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de
Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with.
I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which
gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it
was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a
reviewer.


Cheers,

Barrie Pittock.

-----Original Message-----
From: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz [mailto:j.salinger@niwa.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 12 April 2003 3:40 AM
To: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au; Mike Hulme
Cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au; Peter.Whetton@csiro.au;
Roger.Francey@csiro.au; David.Etheridge@csiro.au; Ian.Smith@csiro.au;
Simon.Torok@csiro.au; Willem.Bouma@csiro.au; j.salinger@niwa.com;
pachauri@teri.res.in; Greg.Ayers@csiro.au; Rick.Bailey@csiro.au;
Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au; p.jones@uea.act.csiro.au;
k.briffa@uea.act.csiro.au; d.wratt@niwa.co.nz;
andy.reisinger@mfe.govt.nz
Subject: Re: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate
Research


Dear Mike, Barrie, Neville et al

Saturday morning here and thanks for all your efforts.  I note the 
reference to Chris de Freitas.  Chris writes very voluminously to the 
NZ media and right wing business community often recycling the 
arguments of sceptics run overseas, which have been put to bed.

I, personally would support any of these actions you are proposing 
particularly if CR continues to publish dishonest or biased science. 
This introduces a new facet to the publication of science and we 
should maybe have a panel that 'reviews the editors'.  Otherwise we 
have the development of shonkey editors who then manipulate the 
editing to get papers with specific views published.  Note the 
immediacy that the right wing media (probably planned) used the 
opportunity!

Your views appreciated - but I can certainly provide a dossier on 
the writings of Chris in the media in New Zealand.

Your views appreciated

Jim


On 11 Apr 2003, at 16:27, Mike Hulme wrote:

> Dear Barrie,
> 
> Yes, this paper has hit the streets here also through the London
> Sunday Telegraph.
> 
> Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are pretty annoyed, and there has been
> correspondence across the Atlantic with Tom Crowley and Ray Bradley. 
> There has been some talk of a formal response but not sure where it
> has got to.  Phil and Keith are really the experts here so I would
> leave that to them.
> 
> Your blow by blow account of what they have done prompts me again to
> consider my position with Climate Research, the journal for whom I
> remain a review editor.  So are people like Tim Carter, Nigel Arnell,
> Simon Shackley, Rob Wilby and Clare Goodess, colleagues whom I know
> well and who might also be horrified at this latest piece of primary
> school science that Chris de Freitas from New Zealand has let through
> (there are a good number of other examples in recent years and
> Wolfgang Cramer resigned from Climate Research 4 years ago because of
> it).
> 
> I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR
> continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a
> collective mass resignation is appropriate.  Phil Jones, I believe, is
> already boycotting reviews for that journal.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> At 14:36 11/04/2003 +1000, you wrote:
> >Hi Neville,
> >
> >You are quite right. My mental process when I read that bit about
> >"warming, wetness or dryness..." was "You must be joking. Surely you
> >didn't really take wetness or dryness into account", so I forgot that
> >maybe they did! MAYBE it is explained in their longer paper?!
> >
> >So, who is going to take up the gauntlet?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Barrie.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au [mailto:n.nicholls@bom.gov.au]
> >Sent: Friday, 11 April 2003 2:00 PM
> >To: Peter.Whetton@csiro.au; Roger.Francey@csiro.au;
> >David.Etheridge@csiro.au; Ian.Smith@csiro.au; Simon.Torok@csiro.au;
> >Willem.Bouma@csiro.au; Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au Cc: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk;
> >j.salinger@niwa.com; N.Nicholls@bom.gov.au; pachauri@teri.res.in;
> >Greg.Ayers@csiro.au Subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research re
> >proxy data
> >
> >
> >Hi Barrie:
> >
> >You forgot to mention the most amusing aspect of the Soon & Baliunas
> >study. They decided that a proxy record showed evidence of a Medieval
> >Warm Period if it "showed a period of 50yr or longer for warming,
> >WETNESS or DRYNESS" between 800 and 1300. (I added the emphasis
> >here). So, almost any 50 yr climate anomaly means, to them, that
> >there has been a local Medieval Warm Period. I guess we should be
> >grateful that they didn't include a 50 yr cool period as evidence of
> >a medieval warm period!
> >
> >It is also worth pointing out that the important claim in The Age
> >newspaper this week, that during the medieval period "world
> >temperatures" were "significantly higher than today's" cannot be
> >based on the Soon & Baliunas paper - they never asked that question,
> >or any question that relates to this. They didn't even ask the
> >question whether the proxy record LOCALLY was warmer during the
> >medieval period than today.
> >
> >And nothing they did can be translated to an estimate of the relative
> >warmth of GLOBAL temperatures.
> >
> >Neville
> 
> 


*********************************************************
Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ
NIWA
P O Box 109 695
Newmarket, Auckland
New Zealand
Tel + 64 9 375 2053  Fax + 64 9 375 2051
e-mail:  j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
**********************************************************
