I’ve already made my case for the Yamal deception by CRU previously on WUWT, and my suspicions were confirmed by the shonky behavior of Dr. Michael Mann, who can’t even bring himself to allow anyone to see the three questions I posed on his Twitter feed. Things are about to get even more interesting soon.
But, for now, I’m posting an excerpt from a posting at Bishop Hill that chronicles The Yamal Deception from the beginning to the present. I don’t normally put links to other websites sales pitches, but Andrew Montford worked very hard to produce this work, and he’s sharing the majority of it online. IT is easy to read, easy to follow, and comphrehensive. If you want to get a Kindle version to read at leisure, use the “Add to cart” button. It works out to 0.75 British Pound Sterling or $1.21 USD. Money well spent. – Anthony
Then here is The Climate Auditor’s take:
Phil Jones’ first instinct on learning about Climategate was that it was linked to the Yamal controversy that was in the air in the weeks leading up to Climategate. I had speculated that CRU must have done calculations for Yamal along the lines of the regional chronology for Taimyr published in Briffa et al 2008. CRU was offended and issued sweeping denials, but my surmise was confirmed by an email in the Climategate dossier. Unfortunately neither Muir Russell nor Oxburgh investigated the circumstances of the withheld regional chronology, despite my submission drawing attention to this battleground issue.
I subsequently submitted an FOI request for the Yamal-Urals regional chronology and a simple list of sites used in the regional chronology. Both requests were refused by the University of East Anglia. I appealed to the Information Commissioner (ICO)….Read More »