Stolen email shows scientist happily sharing climate research data

At least one of the scientists being accused by industry groups and right-wing think tanks of hiding their climate research data, appears in an email we found in the stolen files to be more than happy with sharing his data.

Not only does he share it, but he does so with a person he’s never even met before!

Now that our research team has completed a thorough analysis of the entire 1000+ email record, we’ll be publishing a lot of the information in the coming days that runs counter to the claims made by those using these leaked emails to further their own political agendas.

Here’s one we came across between East Anglia researcher, Dr. Keith Briffa and a Russian scientist, Leonid Klyashtorin, in which Briffa gladly sends along research data to Kylashotrin, a person he has never met:

—- Original Message —–
From: [7]L.B. Klyashtorin
To: [8]Briffa Keith R.
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:58 PM
Subject: Fw: Reconstruction etc.

I am Leonid Klyashtorin from Federal Institute for Fisheries and
Oceanography (VNIRO),Moscow,Russia.

The last 6 monthes I was National Research Council Senior
Associate and worked as Visiting Scientist in the
Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory (PFEL),
NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Monterey , CA on the item “Climate and Fisheries”.
My paper “Climate change and long -term fluctuations of commercial
catches:the possibility of forecasting” published recently as a separate
broshure, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No 410,
pp 86, 2001, and is rather popular among fisheries specialists.
It gives insight of world major fisheries dynamics and contains
forecast to the next 10-20 years. ( the Abstract is attached, PDF file of
all paper also is available)

I have read of your and T. Osborn very interesting and so useful paper
“Blowing Hot asnd Cold..” in Science, v.295.,2002.
Your results clearly shows that main conception
of IPCC experts about unicity of Global Warming events in
20-century is erroneous and now the additional data appear on the natural
long term cyclic climate change at least for the last 2000 years .
My work on the “Climate - Fisheries” connected with questions of Climate
Change and ,naturely, touches of Global Warming Problem.

Me and my colleague from Institute of Physics of the Earth of Russian
Academie of Science recently submitted our paper “On the coherence
between dynamics of the world fuel consumption and global temperature
anomaly”. in the International Journal ” Natrural Hazards” .
The paper is now under reviewing. (The Abstract is attached.)

Now me and a few my collegues from US are in process of writiing
book dedicated of Climate- Fisheries problem and we would like use
the data on the tree -rings anlysis showing cyclic character of
long-term climate changes.
[my emphasis]

I will be very grateful to you for receiving
from you ( if possible) the time series of annual reconstructed
temperature anomaly from Figure (Esper02) and address of website,
where these data are available.

Thank you in

Best regards
Leonid Klyashtorin


—– Original Message —–

From: [1]Keith Briffa

To: [2]L.B. Klyashtorin

Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 11:01 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: Reconstruction etc.

I am very embarrassed as I have just realized I sent the data (a couple of weeks ago at
least !) to the wrong person (someone called Leonid Polyak ) by mistake. He wanted
polar Urals data. I now attach the file with the Nature temperature reconstruction.
First number is the number of values , then subsequent lines contain the date in the
first column (years AD) and the anomalies in the second (as described in the paper).
Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [my emphasis]



Well, it’s obvious they’re both part of the al-gore’s conspiracy! All the World Gubmint code words are there. :-)

From Volohk (not sure of the spelling)

“The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.”

the concern here seems obvious. The same raw data brings about similar homogenized results.

and admitted it.

Looking forward to McIntyre submitting a paper for peer review… as if. I wonder what various peers would think of McIntyre’s political objections to certain trees he didn’t want to count? Anyway, the rebuttal.

Caution: Busy page

I’ve read alot of these emails too. What they show is a mixture of arrogance and tribalism.

Yes they share dodgy data with their mates, but keep Joe Public and those scientists, who have the temerity to disagree, firmly in the dark.

That is contrary to all accepted scientific practice.