This CRU webpage where you can still download the CRUTEM3 datasets reveals the stunning fact that they no longer include the landmark paper Jones & Moberg 2003 in the list of references.
Instead, to keep their “chain of evidence” alive the CRU-Meisters now jump back to Jones et al 1999.
- Jones, P.D., M. New, D.E. Parker, S. Martin, and I.G. Rigor. 1999. Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37:173-199.
This raises all sorts of questions because the latest masterwork Brohan et al 2006:
- Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett, and P.D. Jones. 2006. Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.
is written as an evolution from Jones & Moberg 2003 – further and surprisingly there is NO REFERENCE to Jones 1999 in Brohan et al 2006.
Reading the Abstract and first paragraph of the Introduction to Jones & Moberg 2003 – the authors are clearly updating directly from Jones 1994, ignoring the more recent and we would assume improved over 1994 – Jones et al 1999.
So I am saying that there is much evidence here of striking out references to previously lauded Jones versions that one would expect to be naturally included in the “chain of evidence”.
I can only conclude that for example, Jones & Moberg 2003 does not measure up now as a work that CRU or the UKMO wants to refer to.
Taxpayers may never know the reasons for these odd visible twists and turns in the cloistered and highly secretive IPCC world.
That sounds like the reasons that FOI became available to British taxpayers.
You would think they would quit these games after Climategate. There is a LOT more attention focused on them now.
Hey, I have just noticed your Dec 1st post.
The IPCC must strike out all references to Professor Jones work
December 1st, 2009 by Warwick Hughes
Now that the University of East Anglia has stood aside Professor Jones, it is imperative that the IPCC cease referring to his work.
Professor Jones, the “father of global warming” is the single most influential pro-IPCC climate scientist. On that there can be little argument.
The entire IPCC position is in tatters.
Now inside a month we see that CRU at UoEA is actually doing this.
And the best part is ‘the taxpayers will get their money back’ Will they not????
have a data-filled 2010.
regards