Wednesday, December 28, 2011

1228412429.txt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: wigley@ucar.edu
Subject: Re: Schles suggestion
Date: Thu Dec 4 12:40:29 2008

Tom,
Obviously don't pass on! These proofs have gone back with
about 60 changes to be made. Should be out first issue of 2009.
The bet is that CA will say they found that the IPCC Figure from 1990
was a Lamb diagram 6 months ago. They did, but they didn't
get the right source, and our paper was submitted in early 2008. CA
will also comment on the section on pp21-31. The summary of
where we are with the individual proxies is useful for most of them -
but we didn't get anyone working with speleothems involved. I
remain unconvinced they get the resolution claimed. Yet to see
a speleothem paper which doesn't compare their (individual site) reconstruction with
either the MBH series or a solar proxy.
I hope Ben gets the support from PCMDI and LLNL.
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 22:33 03/12/2008, you wrote:

Phil,
Thanks for all the information on the GISS etc. data.
Re below -- can you send me a preprint of the Holocene
paper.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++
>
> Ben,
> When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
> by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a
> screen, to convince them otherwise
> showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the
> types of people we were
> dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the
> Environmental Sciences school
> - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've
> got to know the FOI
> person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals.
> The VC is also
> aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but
> probably doesn't know
> the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures.
>
> One issue is that these requests aren't that widely known within
> the School. So
> I don't know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up
> the ladder of
> requests at UEA though - we're way behind computing though. We're away
> of
> requests going to others in the UK - MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and
> Imperial College.
>
> So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be
> the first thing
> you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI.
>
> The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data
> Protection Act request sent by
> a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific
> credibility with his peers!
> If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go
> through my emails
> and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago
> I deleted loads of
> emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation
> is different from the FOI -
> it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor
> credit rating !
>
> In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data -
> mainly paleo data.
> Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we've put
> up. Every time, so
> far, that hasn't led to anything being added - instead just
> statements saying read
> what is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one
> such
> response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We've never sent
> programs, any codes
> and manuals.
>
> In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out
> in 2 weeks time.
> These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next
> year we'll
> be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and
> amounts of grants,
> papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of
> FOI requests you get
> should be another.
>
> When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of
> people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early
> next year. Gavin
> and Mike are on this with loads of others. I've told both exactly
> what will appear on
> CA once they get access to it!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote:
>>Dear Tom,
>>
>>I think that the idea of a Commentary in Science or Nature is a good
>>one. Steve Sherwood made a similar suggestion. I'd be perfectly
>>happy NOT to be involved in such a Commentary. My involvement would
>>look too self-serving.
>>
>>One of the problems is that I'm caught in a real Catch-22 situation.
>>At present, I'm damned and publicly vilified because I refused to
>>provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to
>>McIntyre's initial request for climate model data, I'm convinced
>>(based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I
>>would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands
>>for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil
>>has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies
>>for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for
>>further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully
>>and written: "You see - he's guilty as charged!" on his website.
>>
>>You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the
>>MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we've had to do science in
>>"reactive mode", responding to the latest outrageous claims and
>>inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer.
>>For the remainder of my scientific career, I'd like to dictate my
>>own research agenda. I don't want that agenda driven by the constant
>>need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly
>>don't want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of
>>Steven McIntyre.
>>
>>I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If
>>they do not, I'm fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere.
>>
>>With best regards,
>>
>>Ben
>>
>>Tom Wigley wrote:
>>>Ben,
>>>Re the idea Michael sent around (to Revkin et al.)
>>>this is something that Nature or Science might like
>>>as a Commentary. It might even be possible to include
>>>some indirect reference to the Mc audit issue. The
>>>notes I sent could be a starting point. One problem
>>>is that you could not be first author as this would
>>>look like garnering publicity for your own work (as
>>>the 2 key papers are both Santer et al.) Even having
>>>me as the first author may not work. An ideal person
>>>would be Tom Karl, who sent me a response saying "nice
>>>summary".
>>>What do you think?
>>>Tom.
>>
>>
>>--
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Benjamin D. Santer
>>Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
>>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
>>P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
>>Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
>>Tel: (925) 422-3840
>>FAX: (925) 422-7675
>>email: santer1@llnl.gov
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment