Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:
<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
The above quotes from e-mails are from the blog "Watts Up With That?" Please also see the BBC take on this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562; the BBC falls all over itself trying to assure us that these unsavory e-mails about "the cause" are much ado about nothing.
Some scientists hailed the study as a refutation of the claims made by climate sceptics during the Climategate saga
Posted by: new era hats | June 28, 2012 at 01:23 AM
This article may possibly be mentioned on Twitter by someone. genuinely?
Posted by: Gucci Belts | February 16, 2012 at 03:51 AM