Subject: Message from Tom Wigley
Date: Mon Oct 5 11:35:44 2009
Here's a message from Tom. It might be worth sending anything you've got to him to have
a look through. Shorter responses are probably better. Detail can go in a poster.
Pointing out how often or not Yamal is used is useful. I don't think they have done
this. I think many people confuse this with the polar urals chronology. That is different
and it is based on density.
M&M rely on people not checking.
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:57:57 -0600
From: Tom Wigley <email@example.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 126.96.36.199 (Windows/20080421)
To: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028)
X-Spam-Score: 0.30 () [Hold at 5.00] PORN_RP_NASTY,SPF(none,0)
X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default)
X-Canit-Stats-ID: 32219749 - e7f62debf1d6
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 188.8.131.52
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go -- complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say -- but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
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 email@example.com