From	Malcolm K. Hughes	Date	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:46:11 -0700
To	Keith Briffa
CC	Tom Melvin
Subject	Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
Keith - is there a time in the next few days when you could stand talking briefly about this on the phone? I think the fog about the status of the Indigirka/Yakutua data could be cleared really quickly that way. Once again, I'm really sorry it has been necessary to bother you with this. Cheers, Malcolm Keith Briffa wrote: > Malcolm > honestly just a cross thread between Tom and I. I had been asked by > Darrell whether we should use the Sidorova chronology - because of > hassle by you know who - so asked Tom a while ago to ask you. I did > not see your answer - sorry if you cc'd me in as I have not been > checking emails. I fully accept and would NEVER go behind your back to > ask for the data. I understood that the chronology was published and > so thought to compare our RCS version with it if we could produce it > in time . We are being accused of not using that chronology in the > Science paper- so then asked Anders for it. I am happy to send Darrell > the single chronology if that is what Anders has sent. I am having to > start thinking about the Yamal crap and then this Darrell stuff > suddenly arises. I just wanted him to consider including the Polar > Urals reconstruction and the Sidorova series in his analysis before > publishing a correction in Science- apparently the selection criterion > for inclusion of series was anything published north of 60 degrees and > longer than 1000 years. I could do without all this now - don't really > understand what Climate Audit are getting so hysterical about but feel > that I can not ignore it this time - but don't feel up to getting > involved. I fully admit to being out of the loop as regards all this > and having trouble getting back to it. > > To restate - this was a confusion. I fully accept your point (as you > know I would). Sorry if you thought I was doing anything without your > knowledge - TO BE HONEST ALSO - I actually was not really aware that > the data you were producing and that used by Sidorova were one and the > same. Best wishes hopefully all ok > I assume that we are allowed to use the chronolgy as published - are > we? I have not contacted Sidorova. Can you cc answer to Tom as I have > no email at present. (this coming from someone elses computer) > Keith > > > At 16:50 02/10/2009, you wrote: >> Dear Keith - I do hope your recovery continues apace, in spite of the >> recent nonsense. I really have had no intention to bother you with >> work stuff, and had strongly encouraged Mike and Gavin to contact >> Tim and/or Tom putting a response on RlCl. So, I'm really reticent to >> raise something else, but must. >> What's going on? 21st September I got an email from Tom M that >> contained the following para, among other more general discussion: >> "Keith has been complained at by Climate Audit for cherry picking and >> not using your long Indigirka River data set. Not used because we did >> not have the data. Please, could we have the data? We will make >> proper aknowledgement/coauthorship if we use the data." >> I replied pretty much straight away thus: "Hi Tom - please find the >> Esper article in question attached. The so-called Indigirka River >> data set is not yet available because it has not been published. I >> am currently working on that with Russian colleagues, and was indeed >> in Switzerland the week before last to work with one of them on >> specifically this. All being well, there will be an accepted >> manuscript before next summer, and at that point I will make the data >> freely available. Once we get to that point, I'll let you know, of >> course. Cheers, Malcolm" . >> So far, no direct response to this email from Tom. >> This morning I get an email from Anders Moberg, telling me that you >> had asked him for the "Indigirka data". I've waited a couple of hours >> before writing this email so as to try to be constructive. To be sure >> that you understand what that dataset is and is not, please read the >> attached 2006 Moberg corrigendum. >> Once again, the actual data are unpublished, in spite of having been >> discussed in the Russian literature by Siderova et al. A large >> proportion of the raw data are not yet in the public domain, and so >> you would not be able to critically evaluate the chronology as a >> possible climate proxy. Why can that not be said - adequate metadata >> not available, please see Moberg corrigendum? By the way, a 600-year >> reconstruction is available (Hughes et al 1999, also attached), and >> all those raw data are at the ITRDB. >> As you know, it is my intention to friendly, cooperative and open, >> but I'm determined to get some scientific value from all the years of >> work I've invested in the Yakutia work, and in cooperation with >> Russia in general. Releasing these data now would be too much. >> Cheers, Malcolm >> >> >> -- >> Malcolm K Hughes >> Regents' Professor >> Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research >> The University of Arizona >> 105 W Stadium >> Tucson, AZ 85721 >> USA >> >> tel: +1-520-621-6470 >> fax: +1-520-621-8229 >> >> mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu >> >> http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8 >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/