To: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: thanks and one question
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 08:46:42 -0400
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <email@example.com>
I wondered where this completely false claim was coming with. Are these people really so
clueless that they don't even understand that I have nothing to do with this whatsoever.
Pretty much tells you everything you need to do.
I never acknowledge emails from people I don't know, about topics that are in any way
sensitive. this is a perfect example of something that goes right to the trash bin,
On Oct 5, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
Thanks for this!
I assume you are both aware of this prat - Neil Craig, see below. Keith won't be
Checking facts doesn't seem important these days. As CA threads aren't publications this
is difficult for non scientists.
I am going further over one email I got at the weekend - see also below. Typical of Sonia
- although she now seems to only be an emeritus reader!
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 06:00:04 EDT
Subject: Tree rings - accusation that you were solely responsible.
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1254564004"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5045
I have written a couple of blogs on the current report by Steve
McIntyre that the data used by Mann to "prove" the hockey Stick was fabricated. This & the
As a result I have received this email from somebody I am not aquainted with throwing
the entire blame on you. This seems improbable to me & possibly an alarmist damage
limitation exercise. If you wish to comment I would be happy for you to do so.
"Please note: Steve McIntyre's post concerns work by climate scientist Keith Briffa and
not Michael Mann. You will probably wish to correct your post.
I have posted this as an update with my reply:
"My understanding is that while Briffa did the tree ring measurement, Mann, in his paper,
chose to choose 12 atypical tree rings out of at least 34 to fabricate the global warming
trend. My assumption is that Mann is responsible for fabrications in his own paper & that
this is a damage limitation exercise. I am open to correction on this & indeed have emailed
Mr Briffa to see. "
You may be interested in my political blog
We received this through our enquiries desk. I assume that you are aware of this person,
including those copied on the message.
If we are to respond, it would be to indicate that there are multiple sources of supporting
evidence and that we continue to place our confidence in the international scientific
assessment process. This confidence has proven to be well placed.
From: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen <Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk>
Date: 2 October 2009 18:09:39 GMT+01:00
To: Stephanie Ferguson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Peiser, Benny" <B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>, Patrick David Henderson
<email@example.com>, Christopher Monckton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Please take note of potetially serious allegations of scientific
'fraud' by CRU and Met Office
I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work is based on the data provided by CRU (as
does the work of the IPCC and of course UK climate policy). Some of this, very
fundamentally, would now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and may even face future
legal enquiries. It may be in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good time and
become a little more 'uncertain' about its policy advice.
Perhaps you can comment on the following and pass the allegations made on to the
It is beyond my expertise to assess the claims made, but they would fit into my
perception of the whole 'man-made global warming' cum energy policy debate. I know several
of the people involved personally and have no reason to doubt their sincerity and honour
as scientists, though I am also aware of their highly critical (of IPCC science) policy
I could also let you have statements by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Ross
McKitrick currently teaches at Westminister Business School and who is fully informed about
the relevant issues. He recently addressed a meeting of about 50 people in London.
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Multi-Science ( www.multi-science.co.uk)
HULL HU6 7RX
Fax: (0044) 1482 466340
TWO copied pieces follow, both relate to CRU and UK climate policy
a. THE MET OFFICE AND CRU'S YAMAL SCANDAL: EXPLAIN OR RESIGN
" Jennifer Marohasy <email@example.com>
Leading UK Climate Scientists Must Explain or Resign, Jennifer Marohasy
< < http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists ->
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Michael E. Mann
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: email@example.com
University Park, PA 16802-5013
"Dire Predictions" book site: