In the IPCC AR4 (Assessment Report 4) there was a desire to keep the famous "Hockey Stick" in place. If not the discreditted Mann stick, then a substitute that could be used to say something like "it's hotter than when Jesus played fullback for Jerusalem"
Now in order to do this, IPCC rules stated that any research to be included in AR4 would HAVE to be published no later than July 2006. As it turned out a paper by Wahl and Amman appeared to scape in by it teeth, phew.
But after a little time over which people could read all the publications, it appeared that there was something strange about this savious W&M paper. Hidden in the citation was an absolutely crucial one to a paper (also by W&M) with a publication date AFTER July 2006. In fact, the citation was even worse, it was to a paper "under review" after July 2006 (and was in fact subsequently rejected for publication!!).
- How did they do that. Were W&M time travellers?
- Had someone at the IPCC bent the rule for them because they wanted the specific "flavour" of findings (jolly Hockey Sticks) their paper had?
- Had someone at the Journals in question bent rules to allow citations to unpublished papers?
It was all very murky. Even after a year, as shown in this post:
Well, up to now, it was not possible to do anything but look at the circumstantial evidence that there had been some manipulation of peer review processes and IPCC rules (supposed to be so stringent and credible).
Until now. Look at this email:
Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable
Do I have to spell out the conspiracy here?
|-----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann Subject: Wahl/Ammann|
Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's
online first, but comes up if you search.
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't
changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.
Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something
to amuse themselves with.
The highlighted bit showed they knew they need to change the dates after the fact (don't forget, this email is dated 2007 talking about the final changes to a paper supposed to have been published in by July 12006.
Phil Jones was a Coordinating Lead Author for the relevant part of the IPCC report. He was helping this scam as this email clearly shows.
And everyone holds up the IPCC Report as some form of high science.