FOI Granted
Posted by Jeff Id on August 23, 2011
At Bishop Hill blog, an FOI was denied for the release of my and others correspondence with Dr. Paul Dennis because the record was lost. I just reviewed it again now and it was on November 19th 2009 that Paul Dennis sent me an email regarding his paper on Antarctic isotope analysis. I hadn’t realized it was on the same day as climategate until now. That would certainly be of interest to the understandably climate-ignorant investigators. Perhaps that coincidence changes some of the possibilities of motivation for the Guardian article promoting a silly unstated hypothesis regarding the Doctor?
I don’t see any replies from me back to him as I was somewhat distracted by climategate for the next couple of months. Hopefully, I’m forgiven for the lack of politeness. He only left 3 other comments on public blog threads here that I found, all prior to this time which were constructively, and unfortunately for me ,correctly, critical of my understanding of various aspects of ice cores at the time.
In other words, here is to my knowledge, the complete unabridged (except for email addresses) version of our email communications.
Dennis Paul Mr (ENV) P.xxxxxxxx
to xxxxx@xxxx.com date subject mailed-by Jeff,
I read your blog, and others, with great interest and often a smile. I think it’s fantastic that so many are involving themselves in the debate and thinking with clarity about the issues. and notably the statistics.
Anyway that’s beside the point. I’ve attached a short GRL paper we’ve just published on an ice core from the base of the Antarctic Peninsula. It obviously has relevance to the ongoing debate, the work of Eric Steig et al. and your own analysis of this paper.
Kind regards,
Paul
Paul Dennis
xxxxxxx@xxxx.com
Head of Stable Isotope Laboratories
School of Environmental Sciences
UEA
I suppose that a scientist discussing his own work is a little unusual. 😉 I should do a post on his paper, it was interesting as I recall.
kim said
Omigod, ‘lost’ leaves the Masheys and Deep Climates of the world with an unrestricted field of fire, and unbounded volumes for the delusions of their imaginations to fill.
==========
curious said
Will you forward a copy to UEA for their records? I think it would be nice for them to have some positive and professional examples of climate correspondence.
Adam Gallon said
A blatant example of a psuedo-scientist ignoring Dr Mann’s sage words, by not “ignoring these people” and so obviously imperilling themselves and the whole arena of climatology.;-)
Oliver K. Manuel said
AGW is not my concern; Climategate exposed the tip of an extremely dangerous iceberg.
“Lysenkoism” is the real danger.
http://www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html
1. Evidence for and against AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is weak. Climategate and official responses to it provided the first public hint that politics dominates rational thought in Western science.
2. Evidence for solar mass fractionation and neutron repulsion in the solar core – Earth’s heat source – are overwhelming:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm
http://tinyurl.com/224kz4
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
http://www.omatumr.com/lpsc.prn.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x1n87370x6685079/
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1033.pdf
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/jrnc/2005/00000266/00000002/00000887
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
Thus, it is blatantly false, dangerous, and unscientific to claim that:
a.) Earth’s heat source is steady and in equilibrium, as concluded at the Bilderberg in 1967, and
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh….3….5G
b.) Future energy needs can be met with H-fusion reactors – like the heat source of the Sin and stars.
These two dogmas reveal that Western science is controlled by the old USSR-style of “Lysenkoism.”
http://www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html
With kind regards,
Oliver
Nic L said
Adam Gallon said “A blatant example of a psuedo-scientist …”
Paul Dennis is certainly not a pseudo-scientist; IMO he is very much a real scientist, carrying out his work in an open manner. He readily supplied me with the Gomez ice core data that the GRL paper he sent related to. He has also made pertinent comments on various of the non-censored climate blogs. I think that his approach to engaging with scientifically-literate but non-academic sceptics is to be highly commended.
That said, I have serious doubts about the warming trend at Gomez reported in his GRL paper, as the correlation of the ice core data with local temperatures seems to exist only during the first half of the period involved.
Jeff Id said
Nic,
I think Adam was tongue in cheek. Paul was certainly forthcoming and none to worried about giving his opinions. A sure sign of a scientist who works to stay unbiased.
Oliver K. Manuel said
Dear friends,
The historical review of the deep roots of Climategate has been updated to add reference [1] noting the remarkable similarity between “Lysenkoism” under Joseph Stalin in the old USSR and post-modern SSM and AGW dogmas.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.doc
Please let me know if you find typos in the documents.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo