cc: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 02:12:59 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Fwd: Questions re. IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 CONFIDENTIAL to: "Keith Briffa" Keith, A few thoughts. I’d liaise with John about responses, as differences on some issues will be picked up. The meeting here is going well. Hotel location good, but food not that great. It is hot and very humid. Some thoughts on how to respond Q1. Check with Susan. I think the answer ought to be No. Q2. Again ought to be No. Q3. I presume you made it, as that is what the paper (yours) did. Q4. Impossible to say who wrote what bit of text. Q5. The CLAs and LAs used their judgement. If it was like Ch 3, the text changes and responses were done somewhat independently – certainly at different times. They certainly had different return deadlines. Q6. Could say your expertise allowed you to see more drafts than any skeptic. Probably not worth giving a response to this question. People shouldn’t be commenting on issues in paper they were reviewing. Q7. These panels weren’t set up to adjudicate – like a jury. I’d ignore anything that refers to oaths. Some of Holland’s earlier questions should have been posed to those involved in Wegman. You could say you didn’t refer to Wegman as IPCC is an assessment and not a review. Again saying this might not help, but a general comment that IPCC is not a review, but an assessment would be useful. I would also point your qualifications versus M&M, but maybe this won’t help. I have a new paper from Mike he gave me yesterday. It is in press in PNAS and he thinks you reviewed or Tim did. I’ve not looked at in much detail, but it looks pretty comprehensive. Mike – as you would expect – thinks it is good, and answers everything. Q8. No it doesn’t. Remind Holland of all the other series – not just Mann. This should probably be your main point in the reply. Q9. This would take you ages to put together. Ignore this email. Q10. No. Worth saying the time investment it took and the time you had to work late and weekends – affecting other aspects of teaching/research. Your time wasn’t paid for. UEA paid you as normally. Cheers Phil > Hi Peck Eystein John (and Phil as Head of CRU) > just to keep you in the loop, I have received the attached letter . > I am not asking for any > input as regards a response -which I shall keep brief - when I get > round to it. Just thought > it appropriate to let you know what was happening. I will forward my > response in due course. > Cheers > Keith > >>From: "David Holland" >>To: "Keith Briffa" >>Cc: "Nigel Lawson" , >> "Tim Boswell" >>Subject: Questions re. IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 >>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:24:11 +0100 >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 >>X-Canit-CHI2: 0.43 >>X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0091 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN) >>X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_MOSTLY >>X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from >>UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) >>X-Canit-Stats-ID: 175908 - 257c56a64421 >>X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=175908&m=257c56a64421&c=f >>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=175908&m=257c56a64421&c=n >>X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=175908&m=257c56a64421&c=s >>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.5 >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++ >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/