To: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" <k319@uea.ac.uk>, "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" <K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk>, "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" <P.Jones@uea.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:33:16 +0100
Cc: "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" <B.Summers@uea.ac.uk>, "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" <A.Preece@uea.ac.uk>
WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means - for the man-in-the street).
Given the fact that this campaign is clearly not going to die down & we now have a silly attempt to escalate it locally (dragging Norfolk's reputation thro the mud), I have revised my view & feel we do need to pursue the spectator more vigorously. To me, it seems straightforward - Keith has been accused of fraud on an official Spectator website - that is (wharever the legal word is).
Trevor
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:16 PM
>To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
>Cc: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); Summers Brian Mr (REG); Preece
>Alan Mr (MAC)
>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
>Dear Phil and Keith,
>Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP
>environment correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing
>about it (true, as he has just returned from China).
>
>I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees
>any problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how
>anything is phrased and issuing a statement along the
>following lines. (I think the last line would have to come
>directly from you Keith)
>
>For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter.
>I have rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been
>opened) and emailed. Solicitor is now looking closely at the
>piece in the Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter.
>Best, Annie
>
>
>Draft statement
>Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa deliberately
>selected tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of
>recent dramatic warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia
>is completely false. A full rebuttal is published on the
>Climatic Research Unit's website.
>
>This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site - a
>site for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve
>McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth
>changes in the Yamal region by substituting some of the data
>used in Prof Briffa's published and peer-reviewed analysis,
>with recent data from a more localised origin than the data
>analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre's selection produces
>a different result, it cannot be considered to be more authoritative.
>
>This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the
>Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the
>Copenhagen climate talks.
>
>
>-------------------------------
>Annie Ogden, Head of Communications,
>University of East Anglia,
>Norwich, NR4 7TJ.
>Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764
>www.uea.ac.uk/comm
>............................................
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO)
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:40 PM
>To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)
>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
> Here it is Annie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Greaves, Tara [mailto:Tara.Greaves@archant.co.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:11 PM
>To: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO)
>Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
>Also, do you know anything about this?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David_Robinson [mailto:darobin@netcomuk.co.uk]
>Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45
>To: newsdesk@archant.co.uk
>Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads
>
>Sir,
>I draw your attention to the growing international climate
>change scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the
>reputation of it, and Norfolk, through the mud.
>
>After several weeks of open criticism of the use of a
>particular, alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no
>attempted rebuttle by the CRU. Latest information suggests
>that dozens of 'peer reviewed' scientific papers that relied
>on the same dataset are now 'similarly flawed' and should be
>withdrawn. This, unfortunately, draws into question a
>fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion - namely, whether the
>recent global warming is in fact abnormal and hence
>attributable to man.
>
>I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject
>profoundly worrying given the importance of the topic.
>
>Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be
>greatly in the public interest, especially given the
>Copenhagen summit fast approaching.
>
>David Robinson
>
>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374#comments
>---
>Sent via BlackBerry
>David Robinson MSc
>Blacklock and Bowers Limited
>
>This email and any attachments to it are confidential and
>intended solely for the individual or organisation to whom
>they are addressed.
>You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments
>in whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The
>views expressed in them are those of the individual author and
>do not necessarily represent the views of this Company.
>
>Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a
>virus we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and
>you should take all steps that you can to protect your systems
>against viruses.
>
>Archant Regional Limited, is registered in England under
>Company Registration Number 19300, and the Registered Office
>is Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment