Myles Allen, a declared supporter of open data archives, has, in blog comments here, proposed “name and shame” as a first tactic against data obstructionists (as opposed to FOI). Journal editors can and should enforce a simple “disclose or retract” policy if a result is challenged, and almost all of them do: if any don’t, […]
Myles Allen has written here blaming Bishop Hill for “keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies” like the Hockey Stick: My fear is that by keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies, you are excluding them from the discussion of what we should do about climate change But it’s not Bishop Hill that Myles Allen should be […]
Schmidt’s recent post on Yamal advocated the following “conspiracy theory”: McIntyre got the erroneous idea that studies were being done, but were being suppressed if they showed something ‘inconvenient’. This is of course a classic conspiracy theory and one that can’t be easily disproved. Accusation: you did something and then hid it. Response: No I […]
Yesterday, I received updated Yamal data (to 2005) from Rashit Hantemirov, together with a cordial cover note. As CA and other readers know, Hantemirov had also promptly sent me data for Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002. There are 120 cores in the data set, which comes up to 2005. I’ve calculated a chronology from this information […]
In yesterday’s post (as noted), I only responded to one aspect of Schmidt’s Yamal article, as it contains numerous extraneous spitballs, each of which takes time to respond to. In yesterday’s post, I focused on points of agreement or points where agreement ought to be possible. In a subsequent RC comment, Schmidt complained that I […]
Interesting news at Bishop Hill. A UK minister informed David Holland’s MP that the extra secrecy measures at IPCC, arising from the instigation of Phil Jones and persistence of Thomas Stocker, arose unintentionally and as a “drafting error”.
Two days ago, NASA blogger Gavin Schmidt posted an extended rant against me at Real Climate, a rant directed in part at my recent post on Yamal. I’ve now looked through his post carefully and, beneath Schmidt’s fulminations, did not find any rebuttal to any points actually made in my post, as I’ll discuss in […]
I’m writing a response to Gavin Schmidt’s rant about Yamal, which I should finish by tomorrow. Schmidt’s rant does not refute anything in my Yamal post. Indeed, Schmidt barely touches on the actual content of my post. Most of his post has nothing to do with Yamal. In the present post, I’ll deal with the […]
In the FOI request under appeal, one of the two outstanding issues is my request for a copy of the Wahl and Ammann version, as submitted to Lead Author Briffa and used in the AR4 First Draft. East Anglia has argued that Briffa received the article under conditions of ordinary academic confidentiality. My counter-argument is […]
UEA made lengthy submission to Information Tribunal, re-iterating their claim that attachments to the Wahl emails have been destroyed. The present appeal arises in part from Acton telling to the Parliamentary Committee that they did not inquire deeply into Jones’ deletion of email request because the “emails do exist”: Q84 Graham Stringer: Thank you. Sir […]
Climate Audit 