Charles of WUWT offers a new and interesting theory of the file: that the file was not “stolen”, it was “found”. See
here. Charles’ epithet: “Never assume malice where stupidity will do”.
Here’s his scenario. Continue reading →
A CA readr has organized the Harry_Read_Me file here. Take a look.
And we thought GISTEMP was bad. And it’s not like the underlying calculations are very complicated.
IPCC policies state that their process is supposed to be open and transparent and that all comments are to be archived. Previously, we observed that the Lead Author Responses to our Review Comments were completely unresponsive on key issues. Under IPCC policies, the Review Editor is charged with seeing that this doesn’t happen. John Mitchell of Hadley Center was Review Editor of chapter 6. Despite policies to the contrary, the IPCC refused to provide complete comments by Mitchell and other Review Editors, providing only their sing-off statements.
David Holland attempted to obtain Mitchell’s review. These were refused on a variety of pretexts: first, that they had been destroyed; when that didn’t work, on the grounds that Mitchell had acted in a “personal” capacity; when that didn’t work (due to the fact that David Holland requested FOI information on who paid for his travel to IPCC meetings, they adopted the strategy referred to by Phil Jones – that IPCC was an international organization and that responding to FOI would interfere with UK relations with an international organization.
Ross McKitrick wrote me reporting that Mitchell made some on-point comments about the Hockey Stick issue. Mitchell’s comments could have been made by a CA reader. For example:
Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
There’s more. Continue reading →
Judy Curry writes in as follows:
Having been riveted for the last few days by posts in the blogosphere on the HADCRU hack and the increasing attention being given to this by the mainstream media, I would like to provide an “external but insider” assessment and perspective. Continue reading →
Good notes on source code by a blogger here/ Also here
The emails are only the start of this. The zip includes data and code. Reader Neal writes as follows (SM Note: Anthony reports below that he has verified these comments in the following location /documents/osborn-tree6/mann/oldprog
in the files maps12.pro maps15.pro maps24.pro):
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. Continue reading →
Judy Curry writes in as follows: (please comment here)
Continue reading →
Like many other people, I’m gradually digesting the CRU letters. Obviously I’m going to comment on them but I’m going to start a little slowly. Here’s one that’s a little fun, Continue reading →
Some actions by whistleblowers in the U.K. are protected under the U.K. Public Interest Disclosure Act Continue reading →
The performance of the CA server is ridiculously slow. Last March, I considered moving to a wordpress account, but was persuaded that there were so many embedded links to CA and to CA graphics to move. Thus, we continued on using our own server, which has now collapsed under a load much more modest than WUWT volume, which is effortlessly handled by WordPress.
On an interim basis, I’ll post at camirror.wordpress.com (the logical name having been hijacked by someone else.)
I’ve done a post on a very recent refusal of my FOI appeal by the University of East Anglia. It may seem like a minor event given the tumultuous events of the past few days, but take a look at the chronology.
[The blog appears to be ok again this morning, 22 Nov]
Climate Audit 