cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, mmaccrac@comcast.net, tcrowley@duke.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu
date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 22:28:22 +1200
from: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
subject: RE: Recent climate sceptic research and the journal Climate 
to: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu>, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, mann@virginia.edu, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Dear All

Good to see some action - and I applaud your initiatives.  As a 
backgrounder I have attached various pieces that have been in the 
NZ Herald which have either involved Chris de Freitas - or are his 
'opinions'.  He publishes as 'associate professor in geography'. The 
NZ Herald is NZ's largest daily metropolitan newspaper. 

These will show you exactly where he is coming from - and our 
attempts locally in New Zealand to rebut these.  

Any actions you do that produce results would be greatly 
appreciated here, and I will ensure that the appropriate sources get 
to know!

Look forward to updates.

Regards to all

Jim
 

On 17 Apr 2003, at 13:48, Phil Jones wrote:

> 
>   Mike,
>       I'm in here along with Keith and Tim. Mike Hulme probably as
>       well. 
> We're all away here
>   now until next Wednesday.
> 
>   Cheers
>   Phil
> 
> 
> At 08:34 17/04/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> >Dear Phil et al,
> >
> >I'm going to try to get ahold of Dick Kerr today to see if I can get
> >his interest in doing a story. My guess is that Dick will go for it.
> >If so, I'd like to give him a list of names of people to contact for
> >comments.
> >
> >Who is game?
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >mike
> >
> >At 08:47 AM 4/17/03 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:
> >
> >>  Dear Barrie,
> >>     My earlier email reply to Neville gives the details of a paper 
> >> already out there and two more
> >>  planned. It is clear when these come out we have to be more active
> >>  in 
> >> gaining more
> >>  widespread publicity for them (much more than we normally do). At
> >>  the 
> >> moment Ray's
> >>  extensive paper (with others) in the PAGES volume could be a
> >>  starting 
> >> point.
> >>     Mike Hulme is moving towards your 3b course of action and I'll
> >>     talk 
> >> to Hans von Storch,
> >>  who although he says he's not the Chief Editor is thought of by
> >>  many to 
> >> be this de facto.
> >>  3c is possible through contacts we all have with editors at
> >>  Science and 
> >> Nature. I realise
> >>  the issues with lobbying groups and I'm sure this has been
> >>  discussed at 
> >> the IPCC planning
> >>  meeting in Marrakesh this week.
> >>     Let's see how Mike gets on and my talks with Hans (and Tom
> >>     Crowley) 
> >> next week.
> >>
> >>      Have a good Easter break - yesterday was the warmest April day
> >>      for 
> >> many locations
> >>  in England since records began, the long daily ones (1890s).
> >>
> >>  Cheers
> >>  Phil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>At 16:19 17/04/03 +1000, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au wrote:
> >>>Dear all,
> >>>
> >>>I just want to throw in some thoughts re appropriate responses to
> >>>all this - probably obvious to some of you, but clearly different
> >>>from some views expressed. This is not solely a reply to Phil
> >>>Jones, as I have read lots of other emails today including all
> >>>those interesting ones from Michael Mann.
> >>>
> >>>1. I completely understand the frustration by some at having to
> >>>consider a reply to these nonsense papers, and I agree that such
> >>>replies will not get cited much and may in fact draw attention to
> >>>papers which deserve to be ignored.
> >>>
> >>>2. However, ignoring them can be interpreted as not having an
> >>>answer, and whether we ignore them or not, there are people and
> >>>lobby groups which will push these papers as 'refereed science'
> >>>which WILL be persuasive to many small or large decision-makers who
> >>>are NOT competent to make their own scientific judgements, and some
> >>>of whom wish the enhanced GH effect would turn out to be a myth. In
> >>>our Australian backwater for example, such papers WILL/ARE being
> >>>copied to business executives and politicians to bolster anti-FCCC
> >>>decisions, and these people do matter. There has to be a
> >>>well-argued and authoritative response, at least for private
> >>>circulation, and as a basis for advice to these decision-makers.
> >>>
> >>>3. I see several possible courses of action that would be useful.
> >>>(a) Prepare a background briefing document for wide private
> >>>circulation, which refutes the claims and lists competent
> >>>authorities who might be consulted for advice on this issue. (b)
> >>>Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
> >>>offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied
> >>>to refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or
> >>>privately may not matter so much, as long as it happens. It could
> >>>be through boycotting the journals, but that might leave them even
> >>>freer to promulgate misinformation. To my mind that is not as good
> >>>as getting the offending editors removed and proper processes in
> >>>place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or
> >>>concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors. (c) A
> >>>journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and
> >>>embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of
> >>>being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for
> >>>Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as "rogue
> >>>editors", in line with current international practice? Or is that
> >>>defamatory? (d) Legal action might be useful for authors who
> >>>consider themselves libelled, and there could be financial support
> >>>for such actions (Jim Salinger might have contacts here). However,
> >>>we would need to be very careful to be moderate and reasonable in
> >>>our reponses to avoid counter legal actions.
> >>>
> >>>4. I thoroughly agree that just entering in to a public slanging
> >>>match with the offending authors (or editors for that matter) on a
> >>>one-to-one basis is not the way to go. We need some more concerted
> >>>action.
> >>>
> >>>5. One other thought is that it may be worthwhile for some authors
> >>>to do a serious further study to bring out some statistical tests
> >>>for the likelihood of numerous proxy records showing unprecedented
> >>>synchronous warming in the last 30+ years. This could be, somewhat
> >>>along the lines of the tests used in the studies of observed
> >>>changes in biological and physical systems in the TAR WGII
> >>>report(SPM figure 1 and related text in Chapter 19, and recent
> >>>papers by Parmesan and Yohe (2003) and Root et al. (2003) in Nature
> >>>421, 37-42 and 57-60). Someone may already have this in hand. I am
> >>>sure the evidence is even stronger than for the critters. That is
> >>>of course what has already been done in fingerprinting the actual
> >>>temperature record.
> >>>
> >>>Anyway, I am not one of the authors, and too busy (for a retired
> >>>person), so I hope you can collectively get something going which I
> >>>can support.
> >>>
> >>>Best regards to all,
> >>>
> >>>Barrie.
> >>>
> >>>Dr. A. Barrie Pittock
> >>>Post-Retirement Fellow, Climate Impact Group
> >>>CSIRO Atmospheric Research, PMB 1, Aspendale 3195, Australia
> >>>Tel: +613 9239 4527, Fax: +61 3 9239 4688, email:
> >>><barrie.pittock@csiro.au> WWW:
> >>>http://www.dar.csiro.au/res/cm/impact.htm
> >>>
> >>>Please Note: Use above address. The old <abp or
> >>>barrie.pittock@dar.csiro.au> is no longer supported.
> >>>
> >>>Currently I am working on a couple of books and other writing re
> >>>climate change and science issues. Please refer any matters re the
> >>>Climate Impact Group to Dr. Peter Whetton, Group Leader, at
> >>><peter.whetton@csiro.au>, tel.:
> >>>+61 3 9239 4535. Normally I am in the lab Tuesdays and Thursdays.
> >>>
> >>>"Far better and approximate answer to the right question which is
> >>>often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question which can
> >>>always be made precise." J. W. Tukey
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 6:23 PM
> >>>To: Mike Hulme; Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au
> >>>Cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au; Peter.Whetton@csiro.au;
> >>>Roger.Francey@csiro.au; David.Etheridge@csiro.au;
> >>>Ian.Smith@csiro.au; Simon.Torok@csiro.au; Willem.Bouma@csiro.au;
> >>>j.salinger@niwa.com; pachauri@teri.res.in; Greg.Ayers@csiro.au;
> >>>Rick.Bailey@csiro.au; Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au Subject: Re: Recent
> >>>climate sceptic research and the journal Climate Research
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   Dear All,
> >>>       There have been a number of emails on these two papers. They
> >>>       are bad.
> >>>I'll be seeing
> >>>   Hans von Storch next week and I'll be telling him in person what
> >>>   a
> >>>disservice he's doing
> >>>   to the science and the status of Climate Research.
> >>>     I've already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the
> >>>     journal. Tom
> >>>Crowley may be
> >>>   writing something - find out also next week, but at the EGS last
> >>>   week Ray
> >>>Bradley, Mike
> >>>   Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do
> >>>   nothing.
> >>>Papers
> >>>   that respond to work like this never get cited - a point I'm
> >>>   trying to
> >>>get across to Hans.
> >>>   We all have better papers to write than waste our time
> >>>   responding to
> >>>drivel like this.
> >>>
> >>>   Cheers
> >>>   Phil
> >>
> >>Prof. Phil Jones
> >>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> >>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> >>University of East Anglia
> >>Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> >>NR4 7TJ
> >>UK 
> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>--------
> >
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >__
> >                      Professor Michael E. Mann
> >           Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
> >                       University of Virginia
> >                      Charlottesville, VA 22903
> >_____________________________________________________________________
> >__ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434)
> >982-2137
> >        http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
> 
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------                                   
> 
> 


*********************************************************
Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ
NIWA
P O Box 109 695
Newmarket, Auckland
New Zealand
Tel + 64 9 375 2053  Fax + 64 9 375 2051
e-mail:  j.salinger@niwa.co.nz
**********************************************************
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

   ---- File information -----------
     File:  New Zealand Herald pieces with Chris de Freitas.doc
     Date:  22 Apr 2003, 22:15
     Size:  57344 bytes.
     Type:  Unknown

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\New Zealand Herald pieces with Chris de Freitas.doc"
