Does the world's fate depend on Reindeer droppings?

James Anderson
The utter cynicism of the CRU climate fraudsters comes through hilariously in the following email from the CRU leak [emphasis added].

Original Filename: 1136918726.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink |

Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: Re: Nature: Review of manuscript 2xxx xxxx xxxx

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:xxx xxxx xxxx


<x-flowed>

Keith,


Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your

response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and

text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick

wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off.


They claim that three cores do not cross-date for TRW.

They also say (without results) that the same applies to MXD

(these results may be in their Supp. Mat. -- I presume you

checked this).


So, all you need say is ...


(1) TRW was not the only data used for cross-dating.

(2) When MXD is used there are clear t-value peaks,

contrary to their claim. You can show your Fig. 4 to prove

this.

(3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated)

chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-based

dating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this.


You could say all this in very few words -- not many more than

I have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any reader

lost.


There are some problems still. I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal.

Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue?

Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees?


Also, there seems to be a one-year offset in the 1020s in your

Fig. 6.


I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) a

better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature,

you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would

be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can

make MM look like ignorant idiots.


Tom.

The utter cynicism of the CRU climate fraudsters comes through hilariously in the following email from the CRU leak [emphasis added].

Original Filename: 1136918726.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink |

Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: Re: Nature: Review of manuscript 2xxx xxxx xxxx

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:xxx xxxx xxxx


<x-flowed>

Keith,


Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your

response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and

text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick

wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off.


They claim that three cores do not cross-date for TRW.

They also say (without results) that the same applies to MXD

(these results may be in their Supp. Mat. -- I presume you

checked this).


So, all you need say is ...


(1) TRW was not the only data used for cross-dating.

(2) When MXD is used there are clear t-value peaks,

contrary to their claim. You can show your Fig. 4 to prove

this.

(3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated)

chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-based

dating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this.


You could say all this in very few words -- not many more than

I have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any reader

lost.


There are some problems still. I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal.

Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue?

Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees?


Also, there seems to be a one-year offset in the 1020s in your

Fig. 6.


I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) a

better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature,

you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would

be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can

make MM look like ignorant idiots.


Tom.