The utter cynicism of the CRU climate fraudsters comes through hilariously in the following email from the CRU leak [emphasis added].

Original Filename: 1136918726.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink |

Earlier Emails | Later Emails

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: Re: Nature: Review of manuscript 2xxx xxxx xxxx

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:xxx xxxx xxxx

<x-flowed>

Keith,

Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your

response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and

text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick

wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off.

They claim that three cores do not cross-date for TRW.

They also say (without results) that the same applies to MXD

(these results may be in their Supp. Mat. -- I presume you

checked this).

So, all you need say is ...

(1) TRW was not the only data used for cross-dating.

(2) When MXD is used there are clear t-value peaks,

contrary to their claim. You can show your Fig. 4 to prove

this.

(3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated)

chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-based

dating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this.

You could say all this in very few words -- not many more than

I have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any reader

lost.

There are some problems still. I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal.

Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue?

Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees?

Also, there seems to be a one-year offset in the 1020s in your

Fig. 6.

I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) a

better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature,

you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would

be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can

make MM look like ignorant idiots.

Tom.