Snow fell on London again today as forecasters said the freezing conditions had caused today to be on track to be the coldest March day we’ve had in 27 years.
The south of England has been the worst hit today, and commuters and other travellers have had to contend with ice and snow.
Blizzards were reported on the M40 in Warwickshire and there were several accidents during the rush hour. Strong winds added to drivers’ problems with falling trees blocking some roads. On the trains, the conditions led to delays in Sussex and Hampshire.
Forecasters warned of snow spreading to nearly every area of Britain, with almost 4inexpected in the worst-hit areas.
The last time the UK experienced such a cold March day was on March 1 1986. In contrast, this time two years ago the country was basking in balmy temperatures of up to 17C (63F).
In Sussex, police said there had been “a number” of crashes caused by the snowy conditions as they warned motorists to take extra care on the roads.
With more snow showers expected throughout the week, bookmakers have slashed the odds for a white Easter.
“Today has been a very cold day and it’s going to be a bitterly cold night,” , Laura Caldwell, a forecaster with MeteoGroup, said.
“South-eastern England is seeing the worst of the weather along with the Channel Islands and should see 2cm to 5cm of snow. “Elsewhere, there will be scattered snow showers across much of the UK. It will be very frosty overnight but tomorrow will be a brighter day so will feel less bitterly cold.
“The South East of England will be the coldest overnight at minus 6 to minus 7C, and will remain the coldest tomorrow at around 2 to 3C. The warmest place will be the north-west of Scotland at 5 to 6C.
“It’s not going to get warm any time soon.”
One lane of the M48 Severn Bridge was closed and falling trees blocked some Welsh roads. Some of the roads where driving conditions were at their worst today included the A46 in Nottinghamshire, the A14 in Suffolk and the A353 in Dorset. Fallen trees blocked roads in Newquay in Cornwall and in Lynton in Devon.
An RAC spokesman said it was on a red alert situation with its call centre teams and patrols dealing with 30% more breakdowns than on a normal Monday in March.
Flurries of snow fell on parts of the capital this morning but the snow was not expected to be heavy in London, with up to 1cm forecast to fall. But outside London in Kent, Sussex and southern Hampshire the snow is forecast to be heavier, with up to 10cm in the worst affected areas.
Bookmakers have slashed the odds for a white Easter.
----------
UK’s coldest spring since 1963 claims 5,000 lives: Pensioners worst affected and experts say final toll could be ‘horrendous’
2,000 extra deaths registered in just the first two weeks of March. And for February, 3,057 extra deaths registered in England and Wales. Campaigners warn weather could prove deadly for thousands more
By PADRAIC FLANAGAN
PUBLISHED: 19:37 EST, 23 March 2013 | UPDATED: 12:10 EST, 24 March 2013
Freezing Britain’s unusually harsh winter could have cost thousands of pensioners their lives.
This month is on track to be the coldest March for 50 years – and as the bitter Arctic conditions caused blackouts and traffic chaos yesterday, experts warned of an ‘horrendous’ death toll among the elderly.
About 2,000 extra deaths were registered in just the first two weeks of March compared with the average for the same period over the past five years.
Whiteout: Blizzards caused huge snow drifts leaving these cars nearly completely covered in Hadfield, Derbyshire
Blizzards: The Peak District was one of the worst affected areas as blizzards swept the UK overnight
And for February, 3,057 extra deaths were registered in England and Wales compared with the five-year average for the month. Campaigners at Age UK, which says 26,000 people die needlessly in winter every year, said the current weather could prove deadly for thousands more.
Director general Michelle Mitchell said: ‘“Colder, harsher winters tend to lead to an increase in life-threatening conditions such as heart attacks and strokes which in turn leads to a high rate of excess winter deaths.”
What a difference a year makes: As Britain endures its coldest March since 1963, just 12 months ago we were basking in sunniest March since 1929. ‘For every one degree drop in average temperature, there are around 8,000 extra deaths.’
The Office for National Statistics said the extra death rate ‘could be to do with the prolonged period of cold weather we’ve been experiencing.’ But it cautioned that it was too early to make an absolute link. The March figures are still provisional.
Malcolm Booth, chief executive of the National Federation of Occupational Pensioners, said that last month almost 700 of his members had died, compared with 250 last year.
‘If our membership is a representative sample that was replicated across the general population, then we could be looking at a horrendous number when all the figures are in,’ he said.
Snow the Welsh town of Llangollen which was cut off by road except for four wheel drive vehicles
Trapped: A car is buried in a snow drift in the Craigant Hills near Belfast, Northern Ireland Tight squeeze: A motorist drives slowly past another vehicle that has been trapped in snow near Belfast
‘An increase in fuel costs and the extended winter means that more people are going to suffer, and more will be unable to afford to eat and heat their homes. It’s a scary prospect.’ It is not just pensioners who are at risk. The body of a 27-year-old man who went missing while walking home from a night out was found in deep snow in farmland near Burnley, Lancashire, yesterday afternoon. Police said the man would not be named until all family members had been informed.
Read more:
-----------
All this as the US is seeing snow from Colorado across St. Louis to Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, DC, Philadelphia and New York City. Alarmists will try and tell you the snow is from global arming which means more moisture or lack of arctic ice even though it has been on a near normal track since October. However, they also claimed the warm spring in recent years and early cherry blossoms were proof positive that we are controlling the environment. They will concoct another story to try and save face but sorry guys the jig is up. no warming for 17 years. No changes in extreme weather, no hot spot in the tropical high atmosphere, increased antarctic ice...I could go on. I have a list of 30 such theory failures that falsify the AGW theory. In the late 1950s, about the same phase of the 60year cycles, we moved into an active snowy March era that lasted well into the 1960s. We will report after the storm this week.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - America can boast only 500 green jobs in solar electric power generation, but 886,000 green jobs in government - many for passage of environmental laws, enforcement of environmental regulations, and administration of environmental programs, according to the new count of green jobs for 2011 released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics this week.
The new report shows that the number of green jobs in the economy grew from 3.2 million in 2010, the first year of data collected, to 3.4 million in 2011. That’s an increase of one-tenth of a percent of the nation’s jobs, from 2.5% to 2.6%.
Andrea Brooks assembles batteries for Ford electric and hybrid vehicles at the Ford Rawsonville Assembly Plant in Ypsilanti, Mich. She’s one of 3.4 million green workers in the U.S.
BLS is responsible for the federal definition of green jobs under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed into law by President George W. Bush. The Act incorporated the Green Jobs Act as Title X, sponsored by then-Rep. Hilda Solis, a California Democrat. Solis became secretary of Labor in 2009, and was charged with implementing her legislation.
Now that Solis has resigned, and the budget sequester is in place, BLS is discontinuing the survey, saving $8 million.
President Barack Obama called for the creation of 5 million green jobs over the next decade in his 2008 campaign. Most recently, in his State of the Union Address, the president reiterated his support, saying “Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean-energy market and the jobs that came with it. We’ve begun to change that.”
The Obama administration then proceeded to give out grants and guaranteed loans for green-energy projects to try to make his dream into reality. Alternative energy grants, loans, and tax breaks cost the economy about $12 billion in 2012.
When people hear of green jobs, they think workers are making wind and solar power, and electric cars and batteries. But few Americans are employed in these sectors.
In addition to the 500 jobs in solar electric power generation, biomass and geothermal electric generation each accounted for 1,000 jobs, and wind electric power generation employed 3,000 Americans. These are all dwarfed by nuclear power, at 44,000, even though nuclear power is no favorite of environmentalists.
In contrast, the number of jobs in oil and gas extraction increased from 159,000 in 2010 to 172,000 in 2011.
The largest increase in green jobs came from the construction industry, which added 102,000 jobs, mostly through relabeling. As more construction materials are categorized as energy efficient, the jobs of those who install them turn green.
For instance, BLS counts construction workers who install energy efficient windows as having green jobs, but not those who put in regular windows. Plumbers who install “Lo-Flo” toilets have green jobs, but not plumbers who put in regular fixtures.
The largest number of green jobs, 886,000, or 26% of total, are in the federal, state, and local governments. This is a decline of 15,000 from 2010, when government was responsible for 28% of green jobs. It takes a quarter of the green jobs work force to pass green jobs laws, write the regulations, and enforce them.
For instance, Gregory Friedman, inspector general of the Energy Department, has a green job and a staff of green employees. Last month he wrote a report describing the misuse of a $150 million grant awarded to LG Chem, a South Korean-owned battery manufacturer in Holland, Mich. LG Chem was supposed to create 440 green jobs and make enough batteries to run 60,000 electric cars by December 2013.
But LG Chem’s employees weren’t green. According to Friedman, “we confirmed that employees spent time volunteering at local non-profit organizations, playing games and watching movies during regular working hours.” LG Chem, meanwhile, sold to U.S. firms batteries made in South Korea. That’s money from Uncle Sam for green jobs in Asia.
Even the Pentagon is trying to go green. It’s spending $510 million over three years to develop new biofuels for ships and tanks. Biofuels cost $27 per gallon, rather than $3.80 per gallon for conventional fuel. With the Pentagon facing a $43 billion sequester this year, in addition to previous cuts of $260 billion over five years, this is not the time for a $510 million experimental program.
The abundance of cheap natural gas in the U.S. is driving out carbon-free options: solar, wind, and nuclear. But is it the right solution to our environmental problems? NRG Energy CEO David Crane talks with energy reporter Russell Gold at WSJ’s ECO:nomics conference.
The rationale is that oil is produced abroad, and so fueling ships with home-made biofuels will increase America’s security. But with new U.S. and Canadian production of oil and gas from shale, we’re no longer as dependent on imports from unfriendly nations.
Such spending might increase numbers of green jobs, but it makes America weaker, rather than stronger, because these fuels are more expensive. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey filed amendments to eliminate the military’s spending on biofuels, but they were rejected on Wednesday.
A July 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the Defense Department and the Interior Department detail plans for off-shore wind energy use and solar and geothermal energy creation on military installations and other federal lands.
Rather than produce alternative energy on military bases, why not lease land on the bases to oil companies to produce supplies of oil and gas? Military bases are near the Monterey shale play in California, the Barnett play and Eagle Ford shale in Texas. The government would get revenues from leases - perhaps enough to pay for the biofuels.
By doing away with the jobs survey, BLS is avoiding further embarrassment to the administration, as well as saving $8 million. Too bad the mandates and subsidies for green energy can’t disappear at the same time.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist of the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute.http://www.marketwatch.com/story/green-jobs-havent-lived-up-to-obamas-promise-2013-03-22?link=home_carouselhttp://www.marketwatch.com/story/green-jobs-havent-lived-up-to-obamas-promise-2013-03-22?link=home_carousel
A number of climate skeptic bloggers have received this message yesterday. While I had planned to defer announcing this until a reasonable scan could be completed, some other bloggers have let the cat out of the bag. I provide this introductory email sent by “FOIA” without editing or comment. I do have one email, which I found quite humorous, which I will add at the end so that our friends know that this is valid. Update - the first email I posted apparently was part of an earlier release (though I had not seen it, there are a number of duplicates in the all.zip file) so I have added a second one.
Update 2: Additional emails have been added - Anthony
Update 3: Delingpole weighs in.
Climategate: FOIA - The Man Who Saved The World Telegraph Blogs
I hope one day that FOIA’s true identity can be revealed so that he can be properly applauded and rewarded for his signal service to mankind. He is a true hero, who deserves to go on the same roll of honour as Norman Borlaug, Julian Simon and Steve McIntyre: people who put truth, integrity and the human race first and ideology second. Unlike the misanthropic greenies who do exactly the opposite.
------
Subject: FOIA 2013
It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.
Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 
If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).
Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.
I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220,000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment. Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.
Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.
I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.
I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.
That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.
If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words.
The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science - on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.
Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.
It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.
Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.
Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.
We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.
If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.
I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations - trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan .
Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.
Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).
Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.
I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.
More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.
Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.
Over and out.
Mr. FOIA
------------
Original Message
From: Michael E. Mann
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:14 AM
To: Edward Cook
Cc: tom crowley ; Michael E. Mann ; esper@xxxxxx ; Jonathan
Overpeck ; Keith Briffa ; mhughes@xxxxxxx ; rbradley@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: hockey stick
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your message. I’m forwarding this to Ray and Malcolm to reply to some of your statements below,
mike
At 10:59 AM 5/2/01 -0400, Edward Cook wrote:
Ed,
heard some rumor that you are involved in a non-hockey stick reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures. I am very intrigued to learn about this - are these results suggesting the so called Medieval Warm Period may be warmer than the early/mid 20th century? any enlightenment on this would be most appreciated,
Tom
Thomas J. Crowley
Dept. of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3146
Hi Tom,
As rumors often are, the one you heard is not entirely accurate. So, I will take some time here to explain for you, Mike, and others exactly what was done and what the motivation was, in an effort to hopefully avoid any misunderstanding. I especially want to avoid any suggestion that this work was being done to specifically counter or refute the “hockey stick”. However, it does suggest (as do other results from your EBM, Peck’s work, the borehole data, and Briffa and Jones large-scale proxy estimates) that there are unresolved (I think) inconsistencies in the low-frequency aspects of the hockey stick series compared to other results. So, any comparisons with the hockey stick were made with that spirit in mind.
What Jan Esper and I are working on (mostly Jan with me as second author) is a paper that was in response to Broecker’s Science Perspectives piece on
the Medieval Warm Period. Specifically, we took strong exception to his claim that tree rings are incapable of preserving century time scale temperature variability. Of course, if Broecker had read the literature, he would have known that what he claimed was inaccurate. Be that as it may, Jan had been working on a project, as part of his post-doc here, to look at large-scale, low-frequency patterns of tree growth and climate in long tree-ring records provided to him by Fritz Schweingruber. With the addition of a couple of sites from foxtail pine in California, Jan amassed a collection of 14 tree-ring sites scattered somewhat uniformly over the 30-70 degree NH latitude band, with most extending back 1000-1200 years. All of the sites are from temperature-sensitive locations (i.e. high elevation or high northern latitude. It is, as far as I know, the largest,longest, and most spatially representative set of such temperature-sensitive tree-ring data yet put together for the NH extra-tropics.
In order to preserve maximum low-frequency variance, Jan used the Regional Curve Standardization (RCS) method, used previously by Briffa and myself with great success. Only here, Jan chose to do things in a somewhat radical fashion. Since the replication at each site was generally insufficient to produce a robust RCS chronology back to, say, AD 1000, Jan pooled all of the original measurement series into 2 classes of growth trends: non-linear (~700 ring-width series) and linear (~500 ring-width series). He than performed independent RCS on the each of the pooled sets and produced 2 RCS chronologies with remarkably similar multi-decadal and centennial low-frequency characteristics. These chronologies are not good at preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm Period Little Ice Age 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong decadal fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH. The punctuations also appear, in some cases, to be related to known major volcanic eruptions.
Jan originally only wanted to show this NH extra-tropical RCS chronology in a form scaled to millimeters of growth to show how forest productivity and carbon sequestration may be modified by climate variability and change over relatively long time scales. However, I encouraged him to compare his series with NH instrumental temperature data and the proxy estimates produced by Jones, Briffa, and Mann in order bolster the claim that his unorthodox method of pooling the tree-ring data was producing a record that was indeed related to temperatures in some sense. This he did by linearly rescaling his RCS chronology from mm of growth to temperature anomalies. In so doing, Jan demonstrated that his series, on inter-decadal time scales only, was well correlated to the annual NH instrumental record. This result agreed extremely well with those of Jones and Briffa. Of course, some of the same data were used by them, but probably not more than 40 percent (Briffa in particular), so the comparison is based on mostly, but not fully, independent data. The similarity indicated that Jan’s approach was valid for producing a useful reconstruction of multi-decadal temperature variability (probably weighted towards the warm-season months, but it is impossible to know by how much) over a larger region of the NH extra-tropics than that produced before by Jones and Briffa. It also revealed somewhat more intense cooling in the Little Ice Age that is more consistent with what the borehole temperatures indicate back to AD 1600. This result also bolsters the argument for a reasonably large-scale Medieval Warm Period that may not be as warm as the late 20th century, but is of much(?) greater significance than that produced previously.
Of course, Jan also had to compare his record with the hockey stick since that is the most prominent and oft-cited record of NH temperatures covering the past 1000 years. The results were consistent with the differences shown by others, mainly in the century-scale of variability. Again, the Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period Little Ice Age 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the hockey stick. Yet the two series agree reasonably well on inter-decadal timescales, even though they may not be 1:1 expressions of the same temperature window (i.e. annual vs. warm season weighted). However, the tree-ring series used in the hockey stick are warm-season weighted as well, so the difference between “annual” and “warm season” weighted” is probably not as large as it might seem, especially before the period of instrumental data (e.g. pre 1700) in the hockey stick. So, they both share a significant degree of common interdecal temperature information (and some, but not much, data), but do not co-vary well on century timescales. Again, this has all been shown before by others using different temperature reconstructions, but Jan’s result is probably the most comprehensive expression (I believe) of extra-tropical NH temperatures back to AD 800 onmulti-decadal and century time scales.
Now back to the Broecker perspectives piece. I felt compelled to refute Broecker’s erroneous claim that tree rings could not preserve long-termtemperature information. So, I organized a “Special Wally Seminar” in which I introduced the topic to him and the packed audience using SamuelJohnson’s famous “I refute it thus” statement in the form of “Jan Esper and I refute Broecker thus”. Jan than presented, in a very detailed and wellespressed fashion, his story and Broecker became an instant convert. In other words, Wally now believes that long tree-ring records, when properly selected and processed, can preserve low-frequency temperature variability on centennial time scales. Others in the audience came away with the same understanding, one that we dendrochronologists always knew to be the case.
This was the entire purpose of Jan’s work and the presentation of it to Wally and others. Wally had expressed some doubts about the hockey stickpreviously to me and did so again in his perspectives article. So, Jan’s presentation strongly re-enforced Wally’s opinion about the hockey stick, which he has expressed to others including several who attended a subsequent NOAA meeting at Lamont. I have no control over what Wally says and only hope that we can work together to reconcile, in a professional, friendly manner, the differences between the hockey stick and other proxy temperature records covering the past 1000 years. This I would like to do.
I do think that the Medieval Warm Period was a far more significant event than has been recognized previously, as much because the high-resolution data to evaluate it had not been available before. That is much less so the case now. It is even showing up strongly now in long SH tree-ring series. However, there is still the question of how strong this event was in the tropics. I maintain that we do not have the proxies to tell us that now. The tropical ice core data are very difficult to interpret as temperature proxies (far worse than tree rings for sure and maybe even unrelated to temperatures in any simple linear sense as is often assumed), so I do not believe that they can be used alone as records to test for the existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the tropics. That being the case, there are really no other high-resolution records from the tropics to use, and the teleconnections between long extra-tropical proxies and the tropics are, I believe, far too tenuous and probably unstable to use to sort out this issue.
So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in the 20th century. However, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain’s comment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated. If, as some people believe, a degree of symmetry in climate exists between the hemispheres, which would appear to arise from the tropics, then the existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the extra-tropics of the NH and SH argues for its existence in the tropics as well. Only time and an enlarged suite of proxies that extend into the tropics will tell if this is true.
I hope that what I have written clarifies the rumor and expresses my views more completely and accurately.
Cheers,
Ed
Dr. Edward R. Cook
Doherty Senior Scholar
Tree-Ring Laboratory
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Palisades, New York 10964 USA
Here is an email from Tom Wigley on Naomi Oreskes. Bold mine. (h/t to Junkscience.com)
-------
date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:16:40 -0700
from: Tom Wigley
subject: Re: [Fwd: Your Submission]
to: Phil Jones
Phil,
This is weird. I used Web of Knowledge, “create citation report”, and added 1999 thru 2009 numbers. Can’t do you becoz of the too many PDJs problem.
Here are 3 results…
Kevin Trenberth, 9049
Me, 5523
Ben, 2407
The max on their list has only 3365 cites over this period.
Analyses like these by people who don’t know the field are useless. A good example is Naomi Oreskes work.
Tom