Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« More CRU revelations to come | Main | Phil Jones confirms that CRU has been hacked »

Climate cuttings 33

Welcome Instapundit readers! Hope this is useful for you. If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

  • Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
  • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
  • Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
  • Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
  • Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
  • Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series" hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
  • Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
  • Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
  • Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
  • Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
  • Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
  • Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
  • Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
  • Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
  • Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
  • Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
  • Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
  • Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
  • Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
  • Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
  • Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
  • Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
  • Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
  • Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
  • Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
  • Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
  • Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
  • Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
  • Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
  • Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
  • Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
  • Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
  • Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
  • Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
  • Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
  • Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
  • Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
  • Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
  • Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
  • Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
  • Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
  • Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
  • Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
  • David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
  • Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
  • Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
  • Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (10)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    If you want to see how different the world now is from how it was before the internet, look no further than this story (now bouncing energetically around the world): It is claimed that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has been hacked and there is a ...
  • Response
    Response: Wow. Just Wow.
    Is global warming truly a fake? New evidence suggests it might be...
  • Response
    A. W. Montford posts a great list of 33 of the more outrageous emails from the Climatic Research Institute over at Bishop Hill Blog. Here are the first ten: Climate cuttings 33Welcome Instapundit readers! Hope this is useful for you....
  • Response
    The "hacked" (or maybe released by some insider) e-mails and files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia make intoxicating reading. As a minor member of the crowd which has been saying for years that fishy stuff is going on, the schadenfreude is just yummy. A ...
  • Response
    Bishop Hill summarises the many of the discoveries succinctly - I've pulled off a few relevant to my theme (click to read), but do read the original:
  • Response
    From the Bishop Hill summary - "Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!" Plus: " a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the...
  • Response
  • Response
    For those of you who don’t know of the blog Bishop Hill, let me say that he is a succinct and careful writer who has earned praise from many (including myself and Steve McIntyre) in taking a difficult niche subject such as the Hockey Stick and paleo
  • Response
    John Gormley Live and SDA - doing the job the CBC won't do! Welcome JGL listeners: some links to bring you up to speed. Because if you've been relying on your trusty network newsguys to deliver the goods, you're being...
  • Response
    Response: The Bottle Genie
    Well, it finally happened. Much of Canadian media broke radio silence on Climategate today. There really wasn't much choice but to report it, now that Environment Minister Jim Prentice had officially described the allegations as "serious", coupled with the day-old...

Reader Comments (179)

From the programming file "":

printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'

Nov 24, 2009 at 4:41 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file ""

; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don't do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won't be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are "manually" removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.

Nov 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file "":

; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a
; 40-yr filter, although the calibration equation is then applied to raw
; data.

Nov 24, 2009 at 4:46 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file "":

; We have previously ( calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data ( We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

Nov 24, 2009 at 4:48 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file "":

printf,1,'NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY'
printf,1,'REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values'
printf,1,'will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,'
printf,1,'which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful'
printf,1,'than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).'
printf,1,'Osborn TJ, Briffa KR, Schweingruber FH and Jones PD (2004)'
printf,1,'Annually resolved patterns of summer temperature over the Northern'
printf,1,'Hemisphere since AD 1400 from a tree-ring-density network.'
printf,1,'Submitted to Global and Planetary Change.'

Nov 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file "":

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
if n_elements(yrstart) eq 0 then yrstart=1800
if n_elements(doinfill) eq 0 then doinfill=0
if yrstart gt 1937 then message,'Plotting into the decline period!'
; Now prepare for plotting

Nov 24, 2009 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file "":

; Now verify on a grid-box basis
; No need to verify the correct and uncorrected versions, since these
; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
; was corrected onwards from.

Nov 24, 2009 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file "":

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline

Nov 24, 2009 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file "":

; Calibrates, usually via regression, various NH and quasi-NH records
; against NH or quasi-NH seasonal or annual temperatures.
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

Nov 24, 2009 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

From the programming file "":

; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries

Nov 24, 2009 at 5:07 PM | Unregistered Commentermark

Trenberth is talking to the press and at least one thing he revealed is interesting -

"Trenberth, a well-respected atmospheric scientist, said it did not appear that all the documents stolen from the university had been distributed on the Internet by the hackers."

Sounds like he is preparing us that more damaging material is going to trickle out ala the ACORN tapes. I can hardly wait. Perhaps the series the main focus of the Holland FOI will next be outed.

Nov 24, 2009 at 5:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterWacojoe

For a real eye opener, read the document called "ipcc-tar-master.doc" which is all of the expert comments on the IPCC WGI third assessment report. Too long to post here but fact is the majority of the expert reviews were highly negative and critical of the IPCC report. The only "consensus" appears to be that the report is garbage.

Nov 24, 2009 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered Commentermark


From: Phil Jones <>
To: William M Connolley <>,Caspar Ammann
Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:38:40 +0000

"So, that's how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last

Read the anatomy of IPCC figures at this e-mail : 1168022320.txt

Nov 24, 2009 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered Commenteraylamp

If these people were accountants, they would be in jail. The names of those involved must be run through search engines to see how far their poison has spread. It would be interesting to figure out who their unnamed fellow travellers are.

Nov 24, 2009 at 7:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterM Holmes

I have never subscribed to man being responsible on climate change. The world as it stands has been changing in climate since evolution. To think we as a society should be penalized by an ETS,and the political collusion of two parties to agree on climate ETS is a blow to the econimical out look for all Australians.
Rudd,Wong,Garret,Turnbill,Mcpharline should have delayed any such bill untill the real truth is extracted by the released e-mails from the hackers on climate change,negativity on warming. The scientists that changed the the true readings to something else to suit a minority agender, are thugs and liers.

These people have influenced the weak mind of our top politicians,ultimately has and will turn Australia into the laughing stock of our trading partners, we will end up being a third worl economy if this legislation pases into law.

Nov 24, 2009 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Willis

Barry, if you can't spell 'economical', please don't try. I don't give a monkeys' about climate change but an ETS is the first step towards cleaner, sustainable energy - and head in the sand all you like, that is a necessity. Fossil fuels are not unlimited and despite the arguments to the contrary (which are more bogus than climate science) once the shift begins towards diversified sustainable energy it becomes more than cost-effective in the long term. Pity you muppets don't think beyond your next SUV that lets your wife drive the 100m to the shops to purchase five metric tons of junk food for the squalling brood that packs the rafters of your McMansion. While I am disgusted by the chicanery of these scientists, the insane rants of people like the commenters in here evoke more pity than anything. No, the jews/reptiloids/communists are not attempting to destroy the Randian edifice of Capitalism, they are too lazy and disorganised. It's crumbling from within due to stupidity and greed. Look no further than a mirror for your root cause.

Nov 25, 2009 at 12:13 AM | Unregistered Commenterdave


Terrific work - thanks!


Nov 25, 2009 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterRupert Wyndham

If these people were accountants, they would be in jail. The names of those involved must be run through search engines to see how far their poison has spread. It would be interesting to figure out who their unnamed fellow travellers are. November 24, 2009 | M Holmes

Mr. Holmes

I agree. And we already know who were/are a great many of the fellow travellers. The list is a long one, but we might kick off with Rees, King, Houghton, May, Patten, Crewe on this side of the Pond plus another raft more on t'other.


Nov 25, 2009 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterRupert Wyndham

May I interupt your mutual shoulderpatting for a moment? Some of you people seem to be thinking that that scietific data on climate change actually makes any difference to what is really happening on the long term. Draw your eyes away from that screen for a moment and think of the big blue sphere that sustains us all. What is happening to our planet? Stable development, just like back in the middle ages, nothing to worry about? Take a look at the indicators that are more obvious than that climate data: more than a billion people out there are starving! There are wars over resources! Species are going extinct at a rate not seen since the demise of the dinosaurs! Wouldn't you agree that something should be done about this? A manmade intervention, possibly?
Changing the agenda away from blind growth to a more responsible development seems a good idea to me, no matter if there is a scientifically provable climate change or not. If there has been a systematic tempering of data indeed, it appears to also have been guided by ethical considerations for the common good; for the scientific data proving climate change is needed at this point to stem the rapid growth that is destroying the planet. Copenhagen could contribute to make a difference here. Putting these private emails in the public domain at this time on the other hand only helps those who are growing rich by burning up resources who really should belong to our children and grandchildren.

Nov 26, 2009 at 4:07 AM | Unregistered Commentermokky


"growing rich by burning up resources who really should belong to our children and grandchildren."

I don't buy that children and grandchildren stuff. Experience tells me that the next generations of children and grandchildren are going to find their own horrific ways of killing each other and messing things up.

Nov 26, 2009 at 9:10 PM | Unregistered Commenteraylamp

This is the greatest set-back the alarmists have ever seen. It has given climate realists a break-through into mainstream media which has eluded us for years. It has entirely changed the terms of the debate. For the future, I think the economic arguments will come to the fore. The West cannot pay hundreds of biillions of dollars annually to the East in the middle of a recession, to solve an entirely speculative problem based on dodgy computer models. Tax-payers won't stand for it.

Nov 27, 2009 at 3:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Helmer MEP


From: "Michael E. Mann" <>
To: Keith Briffa <>, "raymond s. bradley" <>, Tim Osborn <>,
Subject: Re: One way out....
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:26:xxx xxxx xxxx

Hi Keith,
sorry--yes, I think the Nature idea would be great. Definitely give it a try!
At 06:53 PM 10/30/2003 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:

Things obviously moving over there - this result looks good.Just thought I'd send this
first bit (up to dotted line) of edited version , to illustrate possible toning down?
Have to go now and feed daughter . Will wait til see your joint version first thing
tomorrow - rest assured, that am entirely with you on this and still appalled by the MM
stuff - but keeping your distance and calm stance is still urged.
all the best to all
any objections if I talk to Nature tomorrow?
At 01:31 PM 10/30/xxx xxxx xxxx, Michael E. Mann wrote:

So the verification RE for the "censored" NH mean reconstruction? -6.64
The verification RE for the original MBH98 NH mean reconstruction: 0.42
I think the case is really strong now!
What if were to eliminate the discussion of all the other technical details (and just
say they exist), and state more nicely that these series were effectively censored by
their substitutions, and that by removing those series which they censored, I get a
similar result, with a dismal RE.
And most people would keep the RE of 0.42 over the RE of -6, right? So this would make
that point. I think we also need to say something about the process, etc. (the intro was
based on something that Malcolm/Ray had originally crafted).
Thoughts, comments? Thanks,
I'm thinking of a note saying basically this, and attaching this figure.
Could everybody sign on to something like this?
Thanks for all your help,
At 05:11 PM 10/30/2003 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:

Nov 29, 2009 at 8:43 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

BBC Today - "Commonwealth leaders back climate change fund". *sniff* *sniff*

Nov 29, 2009 at 3:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterJubious

"Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!"

Errrm... yes. You see the reference to Briffa et al in that e-mail? It's a paper in Nature that talks about the "cooling trend" in that particular data set. Except they're pretty sure it's not actual cooling, since temperature measurements don't show any such cooling - hence why the e-mail refers to the "recent non-temperature signal". It's obvious that some, though not all, of the tree core measurements are no longer providing good temperature figures.

This isn't a secret. I mean, Nature's not exactly a low-profile publication.

"Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't."

So... he has a low opinion of the quality of some of the really short-term, highly local, climate modelling? (i.e. not what's required to predict global warming.) That's probably not a surprise; getting that right is harder than doing a model of the entire climate over long time periods.

"Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'."

Errrm... yes, "contain" as in release measurements going back far enough to cover it.

"Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands."

Climate researcher has poor opinion of AGW sceptics' scientific honesty. Film at 11.

Nov 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered Commentermakomk


Re Briffa: This is precisely the point. The evidence that tree rings do not accurately capture temperature information is deleted. Then the 20th century instrumental rise can be combined with meaningless figures for the medieval period and a spurious claim can be made that current temperatures are unprecedented. Do you support the idea of deleting evidence that doesn't support one's claims?

Re Trenberth: Trenberth is not speaking about climate models he's speaking about the surface temperature records. Either you are being disingenuous or you don't know what you are speaking about.

Re Mann: If you want to argue that the words used mean something different to their everyday meaning go right ahead. It just makes you look dishonest.

Re Wigley. And your point is?

Nov 30, 2009 at 2:24 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

One of the many things in the Emails that nearly made me fall off my chair was the black and white confirmation of a suspicion a year or so old, that Tamino’s real name IS Grant Foster. However, of greater significance is that far from him giving the impression of being an independent voice with his own website (OpenMind) etc, he is clearly part of the cabal.

For more information, visit:
See comment # 8491 plus correction in 8493
Also particularly: 8498 & 8508

Dec 7, 2009 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBob_FJ

New Scientist's contribution to this debate is an article on its website entitled:

"Why there's no sign of a climate conspiracy in hacked emails"

The subsequent article is just as complacent - why can't they run a fair debate?

Dec 9, 2009 at 5:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Bailey

A Day at Jack and Jill

Apr 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterParFreertlabs

I wanted to let you know of my latest book.
I have been silenced for 40 years by the MSM.
Could you put up my book on your website, please?
Thank you.
PS Tim’s website is <>

The Kindle version is now on sale...

and the print version:

Mar 10, 2014 at 7:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr Tim Ball-Historical Climatologist

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>