cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
date: Mon, 12 May 2008 08:51:22 +0100 (BST)
subject: Re: Climate Audit and the Appendix Figure from Wengen
Forward responses to me and Tim to read through.
Maybe it's possible to pare these down to basics?
Need to get back to David Palmer and Michael McGarvie
about Susan's response. It seems pretty clear.
Your co-authors don't want their emails sent on.
See if this changes anything?
> will check with John re the status of the reviewing.
> I am pretty confused now about my response to Holland, in the light of
> Susan's recent pronouncement on the matter. I have the response fully
> drafted and was waiting for opinions from you both - but now, even though
> I have told Holland that I will respond , I am now considering whether to
> do as Susan says and simply reply that the published information is the
> "appropriate" source of further study of the devlopment of the AR4 , and
> that I now consider it "inappropriate" for me to comment in any further
> detail. What do you think? I rather liked my responses!
>> Keith, Tim,
>> CA are getting close to finding what the IPCC figure
>> from 1990 is based upon. They haven't found the original
>> source, nor any of the CRU pubs that show Lamb is wrong
>> It is really quite amusing reading a few of the comments.
>> McIntyre's about figuring out how Lamb produced his
>> error bars should be put up on a wall!!
>> #50 and the link to Crispin Tickell's web page is
>> interesting - back to BAS pub. If you have time can you
>> follow this one up. I think CA have the dates wrong
>> and this should be after 1989.
>> Also seems that CA readers don't understand what 'schematic'
>> Maybe you could contact Matthews to see where the reviews are?
>> I was alerted to CA by Gavin and Mike.
>> At KNMI all week.