Friday, December 30, 2011


From: Phil Jones <>
To: Andrew Manning <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Co2 Data
Date: Tue Oct 6 08:38:04 2009

Getting a bit fed up with these baseless allegations.
You could point out several things to Martin.
1. Projections aren't made with observed data - instrumental or paleo. They are made with
climate models.
2. The initial seed for all these allegations is made on Climate Audit. Here they are
quite clever and don't go over the top. They leave it to others like the National Review,
the American Thinker to make the ridiculous ones.
Here is what Stephen McIntyre says on Climate Audit.
"While there is much to criticise in the handling of this data by the authors and the
journals, the results do not in any way show that 'AGW is a fraud' nor that this particular
study was a 'fraud'.
McIntyre has no interest in publishing his results in the peer-review literature. IPCC
won't be able to assess any of it unless he does.
You dad and Susan Solomon have had runs in with him and others
3. You might like to send him this pdf and its Figure 2. Three different groups get much
the same result.
Here are the two web pages we have put up so far. Keith is working on the tree one and
put much more later in the week.
So other groups around the world have also entered into agreements. I know this doesn't
make it right, but it is the way of the world with both instrumental and paleo data. I
frequently try and get data from other people without success, sometimes from people who
send me the pdf of their paper then tell me they can't send me the series in their plots.
It is the right wing web sites doing all this, presumably in the build up to Copenhagen.
At 00:13 06/10/2009, Andrew Manning wrote:

Hi Phil,
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I'm
in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million
employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here
in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into
question (again) observed temperature increases - I thought we'd moved the debate beyond
this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,

Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:50:38 +0100
Subject: Co2 Data
From: Martin Lutyens <>
To: Andrew Manning <>
Dear Andrew,
I just came across an article in The Week, called "The case of the vanishing data". It
writes in a rather wry and sceptical way about your UEA colleagues Phil Jones and Tom
Wigley , saying that only their "homogenised" or "adjusted" historical data is
available, and the original, raw data has gone missing. Apparently some other
environmental gurus now want to look at the original data and were "fobbed off".
According to the article, the adjusted data forms the basis for much of the climate
change debate and , because others now want to look at the source data, it is "at the
centre of an academic spat that could have major implications for the climate change
debate". The author of the original article is Patrick Michaels in The National Review,
who may just be stirring it.
The article concludes "In short, the data invoked to verify the most significant
forecasts about the world's future, have simply vanished." Could you comment on this
please, as someone (eg Siemens Corp.) may pick this up and I think we should all be
forearmed by knowing what really happened and what to say if asked.
Many thanks, Martin
Martin Lutyens
+44 (0) 207 938 2387
+44 (0) 796 646 2661

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



No comments:

Post a Comment