date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:20:22 -0500
from: Peter Bloomfield <bloomfield@stat.ncsu.edu>
subject: Re: Greetings
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
On 03/08/2006 07:17:31 AM Wed, Keith Briffa wrote:
> Peter
> First, I echo your greeting. Not quite sure which "Holocene "  
> you are referring to, but perhaps the Special Issue  Volume 12  
> Issue 6, though I was not aware that anyone had even registered  
> its existence.

Actually, the journal itself, and your role as founding  
member--though the special issue is certainly getting some  
attention!

> I am aware of your involvement in the Committee and glad to  
> hear of it. Sorry I was bogged down here
> with IPCC stuff and so unable to attend.
> You will come to realise that McIntyre and Mc Kitrick and  
> neither fair or objective in their self-appointed roles as  
> so-called "arbiters" of the palaeo work.
> I have heard that they are casting aspersions on your own  
> objectivity , on the grounds I believe, that I once cited your  
> advice as a "personal communication".
> If this causes you a problem , then I apologise, but the  
> "logic" of their position is non existent.
> In a paper in the aforementioned Holocene special issue ,  
> published in 2002 , I do indeed acknowledge your help "as  
> follows
> " We are grateful to Peter Bloomfield for discussions of  
> reconstruction uncertainty". This refers to a typed note sent  
> to "Phil and Keith" , dated 19th December 1990 , which  
> contained notes on calculating confidence levels on  
> reconstructed time series . I can send a photocopy if you would  
> like to see it.

That's what I needed--no need for a copy.  I read the appendix  
where you cited those expressions, and that brought the content  
pretty much back to mind.

> Tim Osborn and I drew on these notes (as acknowledged in the  
> paper) when discussing the uncertainties on reconstructed  
> Northern Hemisphere time series. I realise that I did not draw  
> this to your attention at the time  - but in fact , I think I  
> did consider this, but did not know your whereabouts (having  
> heard some rumour that you had left science to seek your  
> fortune in the realms of the money markets?).

Ah, yes, /that/ was something completely different--and not yet  
entirely over, but that's a story for a more convivial occasion.

>  In fact, I would very much like to discuss issues of  
> reconstruction uncertainty and the efficacy of different  
> regression approaches again  with you, as this is now , as you  
> will have gleaned, an important subject in the context of  
> global warmth and its likely precedence.
> 
> We are working on this issue and would be happy to pass some  
> stuff by you for comment.
> However, if this endangers your position as a member of the  
> Committee , no problem.

I'd be glad to see anything you'd like to get a reaction to--but  
as you note, it should probably be left until this committee  
completes its task.  Perhaps we could get together some time and  
talk about the whole issue.

Best,

Peter
</x-flowed>
