From: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" To: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:33:16 +0100 Cc: "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" , "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means - for the man-in-the street). Given the fact that this campaign is clearly not going to die down & we now have a silly attempt to escalate it locally (dragging Norfolk's reputation thro the mud), I have revised my view & feel we do need to pursue the spectator more vigorously. To me, it seems straightforward - Keith has been accused of fraud on an official Spectator website - that is (wharever the legal word is). Trevor >-----Original Message----- >From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:16 PM >To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Cc: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); Summers Brian Mr (REG); Preece >Alan Mr (MAC) >Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > >Dear Phil and Keith, >Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP >environment correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing >about it (true, as he has just returned from China). > >I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees >any problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how >anything is phrased and issuing a statement along the >following lines. (I think the last line would have to come >directly from you Keith) > >For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter. >I have rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been >opened) and emailed. Solicitor is now looking closely at the >piece in the Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter. >Best, Annie > > >Draft statement >Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa deliberately >selected tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of >recent dramatic warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia >is completely false. A full rebuttal is published on the >Climatic Research Unit's website. > >This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site - a >site for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve >McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth >changes in the Yamal region by substituting some of the data >used in Prof Briffa's published and peer-reviewed analysis, >with recent data from a more localised origin than the data >analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre's selection produces >a different result, it cannot be considered to be more authoritative. > >This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the >Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the >Copenhagen climate talks. > > >------------------------------- >Annie Ogden, Head of Communications, >University of East Anglia, >Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >Tel:+44 (0)1603 592764 >www.uea.ac.uk/comm >............................................ > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:40 PM >To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > > Here it is Annie > >-----Original Message----- >From: Greaves, Tara [mailto:Tara.Greaves@archant.co.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:11 PM >To: Armes Marcus Mr (VCO) >Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > >Also, do you know anything about this? > >-----Original Message----- >From: David_Robinson [mailto:darobin@netcomuk.co.uk] >Sent: 19 October 2009 22:45 >To: newsdesk@archant.co.uk >Subject: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > >Sir, >I draw your attention to the growing international climate >change scandal that is engulfing the CRU and dragging the >reputation of it, and Norfolk, through the mud. > >After several weeks of open criticism of the use of a >particular, alledgedly flawed, CRU dataset there has been no >attempted rebuttle by the CRU. Latest information suggests >that dozens of 'peer reviewed' scientific papers that relied >on the same dataset are now 'similarly flawed' and should be >withdrawn. This, unfortunately, draws into question a >fundamental part of the IPCC conclusion - namely, whether the >recent global warming is in fact abnormal and hence >attributable to man. > >I think the continued silence by the CRU on this subject >profoundly worrying given the importance of the topic. > >Any light you can shed on this whole sorry story would be >greatly in the public interest, especially given the >Copenhagen summit fast approaching. > >David Robinson > >http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7374#comments >--- >Sent via BlackBerry >David Robinson MSc >Blacklock and Bowers Limited > >This email and any attachments to it are confidential and >intended solely for the individual or organisation to whom >they are addressed. >You must not copy or retransmit this e-mail or its attachments >in whole or in part to anyone else without our permission. The >views expressed in them are those of the individual author and >do not necessarily represent the views of this Company. > >Whilst we would never knowingly transmit anything containing a >virus we cannot guarantee that this e-mail is virus-free and >you should take all steps that you can to protect your systems >against viruses. > >Archant Regional Limited, is registered in England under >Company Registration Number 19300, and the Registered Office >is Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE. > >