P. 1
Muir Russell Final

Muir Russell Final

|Views: 6,705|Likes:
Published by AdamVaughan
Sir Muir Russell's review into the University of East Anglia's climate emails
Sir Muir Russell's review into the University of East Anglia's climate emails

More info:

Published by: AdamVaughan on Jul 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





29. The Chapter 6 writing team relied heavily on a paper that was in preparation by
Wahl and Ammann (eventually published as Wahl and Ammann, 2007, hereafter
referred to as WA2007) that purported to refute the arguments of M&M2003. It
has been alleged that Briffa played a central role in improperly using WA2007 to
refute M&M2003, to discredit a paper that conflicted with his core hypothesis,
and in doing so was willing to break IPCC rules:

The claim of refutation made in the second order and the published drafts of
Chapter 6 was knowingly misleading, because the method used to support the
conclusions of WA2007 was dubious, and in any case, relied upon material
that was rejected for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, and was not
made available until August 2008 in an online supplement to Ammann and
Wahl 2007, hereafter referred to as AW2007, long after acceptance of the final
draft of Chapter 6. Thus even if the paper did represent an effective refutation
of the M&M2003 argument, it was not available prior to the acceptance of the
final draft of Chapter 6 of AR4.

IPCC rules require papers that are to be referenced should be at least
‗accepted‘ by journals by specific deadline dates. WA2007 missed these
deadlines and should not have been quoted as evidence.

Briffa broke confidence by asking Wahl, who was not involved in the IPCC
process, to comment on Chapter 6 text.

30. The second order draft text of IPCC 2007 WGI Chapter 6, assumed in the
allegation to have been written by Briffa, and sent late in March 2006 to the
Government and Expert Reviewers, included on page 29 the following text that
relied on WA2007 to rebut M&M2003:

“McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) reported that they were unable to replicate the
results of Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (accepted) demonstrated that
this was due to the omission by McIntyre and McKitrick of several proxy series
used by Mann et al. (1998). Wahl and Ammann (accepted) were able to
reproduce the original reconstruction closely when all records were included”.

31. This text was criticised by the Reviewer for the Government of the United States
of America, who wrote in comment 6-75029

“The use of Wahl and Ammann (accepted) does not comply with WG1‟s deadlines
and all text based on this reference should be deleted. WG1‟s rules require that
all references be “published or in print” by December 16, 2005. Wahl and
Ammann was “provisionally accepted” on that date, and not fully accepted until
February 28, 2006, at which time no final preprint was available. Substantial
changes were made in the paper between December 16, 2005 and February 28,


Comments are available at http://hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/



2006, including insertion of tables showing that the MBH98 reconstruction failed
verification with r-squared statistics, as had been reported by McIntyre and
McKitrick in 2003. These tables were not available in the draft considered by
WG1 when developing the second-order draft.”
The response to this was:
“Rejected – the citation is allowed under current rules” (Comment 6-1158)30

32. It was alleged that the material derived from WA2007 that was the rationale for
the text in the final version of Chapter 6 was based on material that was not
published or openly available until after the last deadline for the final draft. Their
evidence should therefore not have been included.

33. In an email dated 18 July 2006 (1153470204), Briffa wrote to Wahl, who was not
an official Expert Reviewer, as follows:

“Gene I am taking the liberty (confidentially) to send you a copy of the

reviewers comments (please keep these to yourself) of the last IPCC draft
chapter. I am concerned that I am not as objective as perhaps I should be and
would appreciate your take on the comments from number 6-737 onwards, that
relate to your reassessment of the Mann et al work. I have to consider whether
the current text is fair or whether I should change things in the light of the
sceptic comments. In practise this brief version has evolved and there is little
scope for additional text, but I must put on record responses to these comments
- any confidential help , opinions are appreciated . I have only days now to
complete this revision and response. note that the sub heading 6.6 the last 2000

years is page 27 on the original (commented) draft. Cheers Keith”

34. It is alleged that this e-mail is an appeal to a strong proponent of the ―hockey
stick‖ plot for assistance in coping with the comments of reviewers sceptical about

it, that it hands confidential material to Wahl for him to help rebut the comments
from Expert Reviewers critical of the Wahl and Ammann paper, and that it breaks
rules of confidentiality at a stage when even official reviewers were denied ready
access to review comments. It is implied that Briffa was prepared to go to
exceptional and improper lengths to bolster a case that he supported and to defend
it against alternative views.

35. Finally, it is alleged that the relevant paragraph on p.466 in Chapter 6 of the AR4
Final Report leaves the last word to Wahl and Ammann, and the reader is left with
the clear impression that the M&M2003 criticisms have been rebutted, although
the work claimed to be the rigorous basis of this rebuttal had missed or was long
after IPCC deadlines.


Ibid. 29



You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->