Does the world's fate depend on Reindeer droppings?
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 EmailsFrom: Tom Wigley <firstname.lastname@example.org>To: Keith Briffa <email@example.com>Subject: Re: Nature: Review of manuscript 2xxx xxxx xxxxDate: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:xxx xxxx xxxx<x-flowed>Keith,Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think yourresponse is very good. Further, there are grammatical andtext errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrickwrong. 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 youchecked 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 provethis.(3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated)chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-baseddating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this.You could say all this in very few words -- not many more thanI have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any readerlost.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 yourFig. 6.I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) abetter job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature,you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it wouldbe good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you canmake MM look like ignorant idiots.Tom.