Category Archives: climategate

Another Trick from the U of East Anglia

Volume II of the Report of the UK Science and Technology Committee – here – contains supplementary answers by the University of East Anglia that have thus far not attracted commentary. The University’s answer to a question about the July 2009 FOI requests was untruthful in important respects.

Trinity College Presentation, March 2010

I mentioned in March that I was giving a presentation “next Wednesday”on Climategate at Trinity College, University of Toronto. (I’m an alumnus and was a guest member of the Senior Common Room last year.) I meant to post up my talk at the time but forgot to do so and remedy the situation today. Here […]

AR4 on “1998 was the warmest year”

As most CA readers know, a few years ago, I wondered how they knew that 1998 was the warmest year in a millennium – a claim that you don’t see in AR4. Nor, at first (second or even fifth) glance does the assertion, once so prominent, even seem to be addressed in AR4. The Climategate […]

Yamal and the Vaganov Network

As a spin-off from looking at Mann of Oak proxies, I did (what I regard) as a pretty bit of decoding of some measurement data in the Climategate documents. The Climategate directory documents/briffa-treering-external/stepan/ contains a large number of tree ring measurement files dated July 1996 (with the characteristic suffix .rwl) with 3-character labels, “ala” “all” […]

Hide the Decline II

On March 8, Michael Mann’s lawyers, Cozen O’Connor, sent a legal letter to Minnesotans for Global Warming (of the famous Hide the Decline video) threatening them, ironically, with misappropriating Mann’s likeness and, almost as an afterthought, defaming him “by leaving viewers with the incorrect impression that he falsified data to generate desired results in connection […]

Laundering Oxburgh’s Interview

The LA Times laundered Oxburgh’s BBC interview, a laundering which tricked even Pielke Jr. In the original BBC interview, Oxburgh was asked: Obviously there has been a lot of concern from climate change sceptics who brought this matter to the public eye. If you look at the wording of the emails, the fact is that […]

The Wisdom of Solomon

If IPCC authors think that it’s important to improve the measurement of some variable, should they say so in an IPCC report? You’d think that this would be exactly the sort of recommendation that policy makers would appreciate in an assessment report. For example, maybe IPCC scientists could have observed that there was in reality […]

Overpeck’s “Hammer”

One of the curious aspects of IPCC peer review procedure is that the ultimate authority for accepting or rejecting comments by peer reviewers rests with the IPCC authors, as opposed to the Review Editors. Review Editors are supposed to see that authors respond to Review Comments, but don’t follow up to see that it’s actually […]

“More and more concerned about our statement”

In a previous post, I reported that Coordinating Lead Author Overpeck wanted to “deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature”. The MWP was one such target; the Holocene Optimum was another. Overpeck said that there was “no need to go into details on any but […]

“Dealing a Mortal Blow” to the MWP

There has been a considerable amount of speculation over the past few years about which “leading” climate scientist told David Deming that we have to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period, including speculation (e.g. ukweatherworld) that it was Jonathan Overpeck (recently one of two Coordinating Lead Authors of AR4 chapter 6). While the identity […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,193 other followers