Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Still howlin' | Main | Climate models hopelessly simplistic »
Monday
Nov222010

The Holland redaction

This is a guest post by David Holland.

Late last Friday afternoon, the University of East Anglia released some further information that should be of interest to anyone who has followed the minutiae of Climategate.

There is, for instance, a breakdown of the costs of the Russell Review at the end of the response letter. However, of most interest to me, and bearing directly upon the “rigour and honesty” of the Russell Review and UEA’s scientists, is Professor Boulton’s email of 6 May to Professor Briffa. This email (in the zip file here) concerned Briffa's work on the IPCC AR4 Report and the assistance he had received from Eugene Wahl. In his email, Boulton asks Briffa to reply to my allegation that the deadline for cited papers to be “in press” was changed to allow the citation of the Wahl and Ammann 2007 paper, which had missed the original deadline. Without it, IPCC WGI would have had to record the fact that the last word in the peer-reviewed literature was that the Mann et al “hockey stick” studies were invalidated by McIntyre and McKitrick.

Boulton states that, “A detailed account on which this allegation is based has been presented to us and is given in the annex to this letter”. He does not, however, mention who presented the allegation.

You can compare Boulton’s annex to my original submission to the Russell Review, a link to which is now provided at the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee website. Clearly Boulton’s annex is a heavily redacted edit of my submission although it contains no hint that it is.

First of all, the paragraphs 1–39 and 94–131 had been removed entirely. Then, the remainder was further edited, with both full paragraphs and part paragraphs removed. Next, the paragraph numbers were removed from my document, and the remaining text was run together. These changes made it impossible for the reader to know that they were not seeing the original submission and also made it very difficult to cite the text. Finally, to further change the meaning of my submission, all 30 of the footnotes were removed. I should say at this point that I have no idea who did the editing – perhaps it was one of the two firms of lawyers they engaged.

So long as they could honestly claim that they never saw my original submission, this anonymised and drastically edited submission would have excused Briffa and Osborn if, in their joint reply, they stated things that were untrue and contrary to the clear evidence in my full submission. Certainly, UEA seem to give the impression that this edited version of my submission was all that they had seen. In reply to my information request to know who at UEA had access to my submission to the Russell Review, UEA’s David Palmer wrote:

“The University never received directly a copy of your submission to the Russell Review. We only had access to the information included with Prof. Boulton’s letter to Keith Briffa.”

I do not doubt that Mr Palmer has been told this and believes it to be true, but as we shall see, it is unlikely that this is true an; electronic copies of my submission were almost certainly held at least by Briffa and/or Osborn.

First of all, in their reply to Boulton, Osborn and Briffa state:

“Given that virtually every statement in this Annex requires correction of some error of fact, interpretation or implication we believe it to be essential that our responses to these specific allegations as contained in the Annex are formally recorded. Our detailed responses are provided in the form of annotations, added where appropriate, in the accompanying version of the Annex. These are a fundamental part of our response and we ask that the Review Team consider them carefully in conjunction with the more general remarks given below.”

Note that Briffa/Osborn refer to a “version of the Annex”. This indicates that the two men knew that there were different versions of my submission. In addition, in Osborn and Briffa's version of Boulton’s annex, my original paragraph breaks have been reinserted and the paragraph numbers (with 52 incorrectly stated as 54) have also reappeared. How could Osborn and Briffa, or whoever produced this version, know that Boulton’s Annex started only at my paragraph 40? How did they know where all the correct paragraph ends were if they did not have my original submission in front of them? As if this were not enough, eight of the footnotes that had been removed from the Boulton version had magically been reinserted in the Osborn and Briffa version. How could this happen?

The only credible conclusion I can think of is that Briffa and/or Osborn – and the whole “Hockey Team” – had my submission soon after I submitted it and probably someone made covert legal threats of action if it were to be published as is. Possibly Boulton’s Annex was the negotiated redacted version, but Briffa/Osborn had already started answering my full submission.

Either way, UEA's claim that they only had access to the information in Boulton's letter to Briffa appears to directly contradict the evidence.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (75)

~~~shock~~~

Nov 22, 2010 at 9:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

CRU Orders Removal of Climate Realist Article From the Express Newspaper.

http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/cru-orders-removal-of-climate-realist-article-from-the-express/

Pointman

Nov 22, 2010 at 9:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterPointman

david, here's some more editing -

22 Nov: Climate Audit: Escape from Jonestown
I planned to write a one-year anniversary piece on Climategate, but have found it difficult to capture the right tone. I had thought about events and had spent a fair bit of time answering questions for David Adam of Nature, none of which were reflected in Adam’s recent panegyric to Phil Jones. (Adam said today that he had used some of my answers in his article but they had been deleted by Nature editors.)...
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/22/escape-from-jonestown/

Nov 22, 2010 at 9:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterpat

Great stuff Bishop,

It's so hard to lie, you have to remember so much more, who you told what to, where you saved the docs, etc. ......and you can't lie forever, you will always get found out .....

It's a shame these charlatans have been able to deceive us for so long.

Let's have the TRUTH, the WHOLE Truth and nothing BUT the Truth.

Nov 22, 2010 at 9:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin380

Mr Holland,

Good work, again!

I'm content that you can't be given "stuff" because it would have an "Adverse effect on international relations". Makes sense to me. But, errr....

If, and only if, they're talking about "national entities". Last time I checked, the IPCC wasn't a nation state, nor was some ordinary Poly^H^H^H^H Uni out in turnipland.

How do non-nations have "international relations" with non-nations? Just thinking out loud...

Still, in this age of celebrity, maybe the press was totally unjust in revealing information that had an "adverse effect on international relations" when a certain, allegedly musical, paedo was involved in "international relations" in the far east.

Oh what a tangled web they weave, etc., ad nauseam...

Dave

Nov 22, 2010 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Boulton

dirty people playing dirty games , clearly its not possible to responded to details which they have not see , that they are suggest they seen them after all.
The author may be dead right on this, but why did your original submission require such heavy editing , and how could this result in the submission remaining true to its creators intentions?

Nov 22, 2010 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

A bit like politics. Pathologically incapable of playing with a straight bat.

Nov 22, 2010 at 9:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

And the Russell whitewash cost UEA £300k. We could have done a proper job for what, £30k? UEA was so desperate it was willing to spend £300k on this one whitewash.

Nov 22, 2010 at 9:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Will they never learn? Obfuscation and being “economical with the truth” is the ideal way to fire up an army of inquiring minds.

I am very wary of making predictions, especially about the future, but here is one – in very quick order the inquiring minds fired up by the seemingly obvious obfuscation will be accused of pointless persecution. Well, UEA, if you really do want to placate the inquiring minds cease digging holes you are only hardening the resolve of the inquiring minds.

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Pointman

Big CRU mistake, that. Delingpole'll be back...

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Website management, report production, media advice £52,666.68. Who in the media gave them advice?
Secretariat support £42,436.50. Isn't that the same job as the first two above?
Legal advice £22, 641.55- why did they need TWO legal firms, wouldn't one be enough?

Just think, with all the other expenses added in as well, the tax payer could have saved £275,000 plus by asking the Bishop to do the review for them and got a better, fairer job into the bargain.

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

David Holland, recommend you follow Bradley and John Mashey's example and accuse Boulton of plagiarism

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:21 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charley

Does this mean that the traditional 'misleading of the FOI officer' remains an unshakable jewel of this venerable institution's heritage?

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

KnR,

but why did your original submission require such heavy editing?

Well it laid out with references to the emails and other public domain evidence what a scam the AR4 WGI Chapter 6 was. It was peer-reviewed by a Professor, (in fact two) of some standing and has now been very widely read. No one except Briffa and Osborn have made any attempt to dispute it let alone threaten to sue me.

Incidentally the link to my submission is in footnote no. 1 to my letter to the HoC STC, which they have published in their record, so I guess suing is not much of an option any more.

I can guess that Chairman Pachauri may not have liked me quoting his Australian TV interview in which he said

“Every stage of the drafting of our report is peer reviewed, and whatever comments we get from the peer review process are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject those comments are clearly specified. Where we accept a comment we say, "Yes. Accepted." Where we don't, we have to adduce very clear reasons why the authors don't agree with the comment. So it's a very transparent process.”

I went on to point out that the reasons Wahl and Ammann 2007 got cited were not explained very clearly to Reviewer for the Govt. of the USA who said in his comment it missed the deadline and the existing rules required that all references to it had to be removed.

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Holland

"“The University never received directly a copy of your submission to the Russell Review."

Does anyone else think that the word "directly" rather suggests they may have received it indirectly?

or am I being conspiratorial?

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:25 PM | Unregistered Commentersankara

sankara,

The question is only if they "held it". How they came by it is secondary. Can anyone seriously think the VC would not want to see it. Well on second thoughts .. ..

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Holland

As you said of another matter: utterly shameful.

Nov 22, 2010 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

David Holland,

Your actions and words are appreciated.

Thank you.

John

Nov 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Whitman

Once again, "Pop goes the Weasel(s)"
Given the melt-down of the Eurozone, the impending, freeze-up of this rock in a gem-encrusted sea, are there really no mainstream UK politicians with the balls to finally scream.
"ENOUTH; Not one penny more"
Make no mistake. Many will die, in the winter of 2010-2011, before their time; thanks to a government stupidity that allowed the Lunatics to rule the Asylum. That many will succumb before the mortality rates for the previous season will be released is truly sickening!
FGS. If you're going to tax us from the spiders to the sky then, at least, tell us the truth.
At least, that way, you will maintain your credibility to rule.

Nov 22, 2010 at 11:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Ach Weel. Enougth is ENOUTH. For me 6/7 iz twice my lifetime average.
Was it only a decade and a half ago that I was battering the pulpit about how Windows, the work of the devil, would surely be battered into submission by the arch-angel Unix?
Or am just confusing my positioning with the certitude of how much the developed world would be affected by the Y2K strain of the Bubonic Plague?
Whatever. I'm rarely right but I'm happy to share my history of poor projections with regular visitors.
I've learned just one shareable thing from my past.
That, that I've been most exercised in my past, is the least important in the future!

Nov 23, 2010 at 12:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

Thank you, Mr. Holland. As you shine the light of truth on them they are revealed for the despicable creatures they are.

Nov 23, 2010 at 1:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterPatrick M.

On the subject of "harm to international relations", maybe the harm in mind at CRU is the breaches of agreement and copyright that were allegedly performed by some at CRU. For example,
Another issue that should be considered as well is this.
With many papers, we're using Met Office observations. We've abstracted these
from BADC to use them in the papers. We're not allowed to make these available
to others. We'd need to get the Met Office's permission in all cases.
from email 1237496573.

I've had a couple of letters about the Australia-UK relationship on climate data and conditions of use. I do not know if I phrased my questions correctly but the head of the BOM here has stated that CRU had no special agreement to use data. The normal agreement prevents alteration or redistribution of data without permission these days.

Nov 23, 2010 at 3:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff Sherrington

I should say at this point that I have no idea who did the editing – perhaps it was one of the two firms of lawyers they engaged.

Being married to a business lawyer and having dealt with many...

Give them a paragraph and it becomes 100 pages
Give them 100 pages and it becomes 500

I have never met a lawyer yet who reduces the size of anything (other than a bank balance)...

Lawyers can redact, just personally I have never seen it in situations other than pure legalese,

Nov 23, 2010 at 7:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Steve McIntyre covers the story at

http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/22/uea-and-the-muir-russell-cooper-up/#comments

Nov 23, 2010 at 8:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Here is what Fred Pearce had to say about it on 14th September in the Grauniad:

One of the most serious charges to emerge from "climategate" was that CRU scientists did back-door deals to include unpublished research in the last IPCC report, published in 2007. This subverted the supposedly open review process of the IPCC. And, when someone asked for the emails that would have exposed it, they hastily deleted them – a potential breach of freedom of information (FoI) law.

The Muir Russell inquiry said it found no evidence that the CRU scientists had done this. Observers were incredulous. The chronology seemed straightforward. British sceptic David Holland submitted an FoI request to the university asking for emails in which CRU scientists discussed their work for the IPCC. Two days later, Jones sent an email to colleagues asking them to delete emails relating to the behind-the-scenes work for IPCC. That email, as Montford points out, carried Holland's FoI number as its subject line.

How did Sir Muir miss this? In a development not covered by Montford, the university has since admitted, in correspondence with blogger Steve McIntyre, that it omitted the email from its list of FoI requests sent to Sir Muir. So Sir Muir seems to have been about the only person studying the affair not to have known about it.

This is all, we may hope, cock-up rather than conspiracy. But the university did itself no favours in its own response to Sir Muir last week, when it expressed its satisfaction that he had found no evidence of such culpable deletions. Advice to UEA: when in a hole, stop digging.

Misplaced hope by Fred it seems.

Nov 23, 2010 at 8:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Sir....To paraphrase.....Like a stream of bats piss.. you shine out like a shaft of gold whilst all around is darkness....(I've been waiting to say that to someone ever since I heard it in the 70's.....)


well done sir...

Nov 23, 2010 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

David, further evidence that Briffa and Osborn had your original submission is that in their response, they mention you by name after para 89, whereas in the mangled version given to them by Boulton there is no mention of your name.

There are still many unanswered questions. For example, what exactly was the 'legal advice' that prevented them from publishing your submission? Is this question FOI-able? This legal advice cost £22,641 so I hope it was as extensive as it was expensive.

Nov 23, 2010 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

£22,641 won't get you much legal advice if you are dealing with this kind of mess.

Nov 23, 2010 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Pedant-General

Can we have a simple blog post that demonstrates that the Briffa response only holds water (to the unsophisticated observer, it looks like a very strong and very credible dismissal of your - redacted - submission) by being redacted.

I'm thinking:
- link to your original submission
- link to Boulton's redacted one
- link to response

Then short commentary
- importance of what was redacted
- how that undermines their response.

We only need to have a couple of examples - two would be enough - to show that it is only by redacting your submission that they can rubbish it. If we can do that, the work is done: we've proved that there are being spectacularly mendacious and that the overwhelming likelihood is that Bourton was in cahoots - that this is conspiracy, not cock up.

We can then push for a full inquiry into how the inquiries were nobbled.

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterThe Pedant-General

I wonder if Graham Stringer will read this post.

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

I reckon that if you analyse the above list using the short centering method, you could produce a first class hockeystick.

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

ugg, the list has vanished

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

UEA provide incomplete information to the Russell Review.

The Russell Review provided incomplete information to UEA.

Why?

Well it is becoming clear that CRU's response to David Holland's FOI have revealed actions to misrepresent science followed by an attempted cover-up to prevent exposure. These specific allegations of scientific malpractice had to be taken seriously.

UEA's and the Russell Review's response to all this was to ignore and side-step the issue. Big mistake. They became part and parcel of what is now, there are no other words for it, an official cover-up. They know it, we know it, and it is hugely embarrassing for both UEA and Russell. You now get the feeling from Russell's recent comments at the parliamentary committee he wants nothing else to do with UEA.

Finally, I do like David Palmer's response in the letter, "We cite Regulation 12(4)(b) in the belief that, in relation to the information requested that falls within the terms of FOI_08-23, the request for correspondence should be considered manifestly unreasonable in that it places a substantial burden on this institution involving reviewing information sources over a wide range of years. This takes staff away from duties in relation to climate change that they would otherwise be undertaking."

Do UEA honestly believe that in relation to climate change that CRU scientists have anything of value to add to science?

Climategate has forever tainted every aspect of CRU's undertakings.

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Okay, David Holland. Great post and as usual no room to move for the "Alarmists". (Jo Nova says the word "Alarmist" is okay and I bow to that clever lady!)

Now, I normally do not feed Daily Mail Trolls but Zedsded mattress... You came on a few threads ago and asked for proof on who Jones passed the data to...

I, (knowing your past behaviour at the D.M.) to pop over to Climate Audit and ask the same questions.

Up or the challenge?

Before you go, can you explain the missing hot-spot...Can you explain the logarithmic aspect of CO2? Can you show ANY empirical evidence apart from models that have no proven reality?

Sorry guys but I have had 3 years of this troll over at the D.M. and all he has achieved is to drive people over to the sceptical side..........Now I think about it........Job done Truro ZDB!

Myself and Steve McIntyre crowd are waiting for you appearance....You have never had the balls so far! Scared?

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

From: https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/History

"UEA’s academic thinking was distinctive from the word go. The choice of ‘Do Different’ as the University’s motto was a deliberate signal that it was going to look at new ways of providing university education."

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterE O'Connor

I doubt he/she/it is scared, it's skin is too thick, like the rest of him/her/it.
He/she/it constantly plagues the Daily Mail with insults and crass stupidity, but if you put him/her/it right, he/she/it merely has your comment removed. I'm surprised someone of his/her/it's mentality is tolerated here...

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterNatsman

David,

Have you considered making any requests under the DPA (Data Protection Act)?
I came across this bit of information on a government website.

Emails

The Information Commissioner has advised that email messages may be caught by the Act if they identify living individuals and are held, in automated form, in live, archive or back-up systems, or have been deleted from the live system but are still capable of recovery. They may also be caught if, despite having been deleted from the electronic system they are stored in paper form, in relevant filing systems (see next paragraph).


You might be able to obtain any emails that specifically mention you but are not covered under FOI.

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Hi Mr Hill, not sure where to post this so here goes:-

Was reading an article about a lone voice in the UK political scene and thought of you and your struggles here in blighty and when you read the story how apt it is to other mis-guided fools :-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100064330/margaret-thatcher-knew-the-single-currency-would-devastate-europe/

(Not sure how you feel about the lone voice though).

Nov 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterShevva

"The University never received directly a copy of your submission to the Russell Review."

They could not honestly have written "The University never received a copy of your submission to the Russell Review", but to lead most readers into thinking that that is exactly what they meant they intruded the little word 'directly' after the verb. Note the word order: as it stands it has the juxtaposed expression "never received", which is the overriding impression they want the less discriminating reader to see; a much more natural word order in English would be "The University never directly received a copy of your submission to the Russell Review", but that, for them, has the disadvantage that the receipt is not really in question, it was simply 'not directly'.

Of course, the word 'directly' is a clever one as well as it has four main meanings, two of which it shares with the word 'immediately' and both of which are possible here: without a person intervening, and without delay (plus two other possible meanings: without deviation, and forthrightly which are unlikely in this context). By intruding the ambiguity in the expression 'never received directly' it is always possible for someone to argue that what they meant was that they obtained it after a short delay.

However the truth pans out, therefore, they have reserved for themselves enough wiggle room to cover their dissembling.

Nov 23, 2010 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

From page 7 of attachment to letter dated 19 November 2010:

"2. Please advise me how many other emails and documents were kept safe from
deletion by Briffa

There are 4337 separate items that were taken home by Keith Briffa"

Assuming one A4 page per item that runs to nearly 9 packs of copy paper.

This would take up at least 12 lever arch files at one page per item.

Am I being naive in thinking that this is an enormous number of documents to take home from work?

Nov 23, 2010 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

Under Acton, the reviews were set up to protect the integrity of the UEA. This was clearly stated by Acton to the HoC STC "the integrity of the UEA was the most important question". Acton steered the two enquiries away from the science and the scientists to protect the UEA. As Stringer noted "We were told very clearly both by press releases and by Acton when he came [before the committee] that this was going to be an investigation into the science. Oxburgh made it very clear that it was an investigation into the integrity of the scientists,"

Acton has been calling the shots and believes his best hope is whitewash. That strategy is proving to be false: in protecting the CRU from ridicule, he has put the whole of UEA at risk of that.

Nov 23, 2010 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

I think they were taken electronically.

Nov 23, 2010 at 11:44 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

You say that the words:

"Our detailed responses are provided in the form of annotations, added where appropriate, in the accompanying version of the Annex."

".... indicates that the two men knew that there were different versions of my submission"

Are you sure - to me it reads that they copied your Annex and marked it up with their comments as a "version" and sent it back with their reply; and this is the different version to which they are referring?

Nov 23, 2010 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrooks

Re Brooks

If you read the full article you will see that the version Osborn and Briffa were given did not include any paragraph numbering, footnotes or references and yet their reply managed to re-insert the numbers and some of the footnotes. If they didn't have a copy of the original then this would be impossible.

Nov 23, 2010 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

@Messenger:

"Website management, report production, media advice £52,666.68. Who in the media gave them advice?
Secretariat support £42,436.50. Isn't that the same job as the first two above?"

I imagine a chunk of one or other of these budgets went to Luther Pendragon, the 'communication management' company for which Kate Moffat worked. From my experience, she did a great job in refusing to answer questions; she just endlesslty repeated the 'we've nothing to add to what's on the website' mantra; 'communication management' at its best....

Nov 23, 2010 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveS

The cover-up is always worse than the original crime. The more widespread the cover-ups became and the more the number of people involved, the more difficulty it was to hold the story together. It has now completely unravelled.

Were they just stupid or arrogant or did they think they had enough of the establishment behind them to make them bullet-proof (or a combination of all three)?

The only way forward is to have a truly independent parliamentary inquiry into the Oxburgh and Russell inquiry cover-ups by UEA.

Nov 23, 2010 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

In the discussions concerning deletion of emails there is one rather minor aspect I haven’t seen aired. It is perfectly possible that the emails which offended them were actually deleted but that it did not occur to any of them at the time that there would be backup copies and that these would be on machines to which they had no right of access. But the attempt may well have been the very thing that prompted the eventual whistleblower into action.

Nov 23, 2010 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Well

"It has now completely unravelled."


I do urge you all to review what they have actually said in their response. Look and think how the response will play when presented at RC or Tamino, or wherever.

At the moment, we have pretty good proof that there's something odd with the redaction, but that is all and in fact opens you up to ridicule of the form "is that the best they've got".

We have to show, line for line, why the redaction was necessary to support the line they are taking in their response and that they really are lying in the response - that they are choosing to be naive and/or innocent when there is proof that they know fine well what was going on. With that, you have your case. Without it, we are potentially undermining this as an issue.

The BBC will read that response and say "Holland is a troublemaker and his allegations have been comprehensively demolished". We MUST prevent them from doing so: this response must also be discredited properly and I don't see that that has been done.

Nov 23, 2010 at 1:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterThe Pedant-General

Quote, Eystein Jansen email to Keith Briffa, 13th May 2010, "When receiving the revised version of the Wahl/Amman paper on Feb 22, 2006, you immediately notified Peck and me as CLAs."

This immediate notification is not listed as one of the Climategate emails.

Quote, Eystein Jansen email to Keith Briffa, 13th May 2010, "On March 1, 2006 you forwarded a copy of the acceptance e-mail from Schneider to Wahl onward to the CLAs as documentation."

This forwarded copy is not listed as one of the Climategate emails.

Emails were whizzing around concerning the acceptance of the Wahl/Amman paper and its inclusion in AR4 but there appears to be not one from Keith Briffa listed in the Climategate emails around this period, even though Eystein Jansen has confirmed that Briffa had done so on two specific dates.

Either I have not searched the emails thoroughly, or they were overlooked by the leaker/hacker, or these are examples of emails that Briffa took home (and possibly deleted) before they could be leaked/hacked.

Intriguing!

Nov 23, 2010 at 1:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Pedant General - good idea. You are right. These things need to be spelt out line by line. Here's a start.
Holland Submission. Note Paragraph numbering.
Zip file linked to above, containing appendix A, Boulton's letter to Briffa and Osborn. Note no paragraph numbering. Note David's important paragraph 44 deleted.
Briffa and Osborn response. Note David's original paragraph numbering restored. Note para 45 follows 43 with no para 44. Note B & O statement "No text from Wahl is quoted above and therefore this statement is in error", resulting directly from Boulton's deletion of para 44. Their para numbering shows they must have been aware of the missing para.

Now read para 44 - it is climategate email 1141180962, where Wahl says that Overpeck says there was an in-press deadline of the end of February. The very thing that B&O repeatedly attempt to deny.

This small excerpt alone tells us quite a lot about the honesty of Boulton, Briffa and Osborn.

Nov 23, 2010 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>