From	Keith Briffa	Date	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:28:22 +0100
To	Malcolm K. Hughes
CC	Tom Melvin
Subject	Re: IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE
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/