cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Sun, 11 May 2008 18:21:54 +0100 (BST) from: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Climate Audit and the Appendix Figure from Wengen to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil will check with John re the status of the reviewing. I am pretty confused now about my response to Holland, in the light of Susan's recent pronouncement on the matter. I have the response fully drafted and was waiting for opinions from you both - but now, even though I have told Holland that I will respond , I am now considering whether to do as Susan says and simply reply that the published information is the "appropriate" source of further study of the devlopment of the AR4 , and that I now consider it "inappropriate" for me to comment in any further detail. What do you think? I rather liked my responses! Keith > Keith, Tim, > CA are getting close to finding what the IPCC figure > from 1990 is based upon. They haven't found the original > source, nor any of the CRU pubs that show Lamb is wrong > anyway. > It is really quite amusing reading a few of the comments. > McIntyre's about figuring out how Lamb produced his > error bars should be put up on a wall!! > #50 and the link to Crispin Tickell's web page is > interesting - back to BAS pub. If you have time can you > follow this one up. I think CA have the dates wrong > and this should be after 1989. > > Also seems that CA readers don't understand what 'schematic' > means. > > Maybe you could contact Matthews to see where the reviews are? > > I was alerted to CA by Gavin and Mike. > > At KNMI all week. > > Cheers > Phil > > >