date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:37:03 -0500
from: Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@duke.edu>
subject: Re: [Fwd: CCNet SPECIAL: NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT  EXPERTS
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
yes, I do, Peck sent something.
have a good morning!

Gabi

Keith Briffa wrote:

> Gabi
> I believe you have all these now - but may send another (minor edits) 
> version later
> Keith
> At 17:08 25/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>> I see what you are saying (look below).
>> Does not look like the perfect place to show up borderline prepared 
>> due to the IPCC
>> panic, sigh.
>> Keith, would you mind swinging the last millennium section+figures by 
>> so I can make
>> sure we don't step on your turf? I think we are ok, but it would be 
>> good to check.
>> I can send you ours on monday.
>>
>> Gabi
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: CCNet SPECIAL: NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT EXPERTS OR 
>> KANGAROO COURT?
>> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:30:43 -0000
>> From: Peiser, Benny 
>> <mailto:B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk><B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk>
>> To: cambridge-conference 
>> <mailto:cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk><cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> CCNet SPECIAL - 25 February 2006
>> NAS CLIMATE PANEL: INDEPENDENT EXPERTS OR KANGAROO COURT?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If the House of Commerce Committee would like to have additional 
>> information
>> regarding the state of scientific knowledge in the area of research 
>> being
>> conducted by Drs Mann, Hughes, and Bradley, the National Academy of 
>> Sciences
>> would be willing to create an independent expert panel (according to our
>> standard rigorous study process) to assess the state of scientific 
>> knowledge
>> in this area.
>>      --Ralph J Cicerone, NAS President, 15 July 2005
>>
>>
>>
>> It appeared that the issue was not going to go away by itself. We 
>> thought this
>> was an appropriate way to get an assessment of the science.
>>       --David Goldston, NAS science committee chief of staff, 10 
>> February 2006
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Mr. Barton's committee, said in 
>> a statement
>> that because "combating climate change is a breathtakingly expensive 
>> prospect,"
>> it deserved closer study, and that the academy was "unlikely" to 
>> address all of
>> Mr. Barton's concerns. Mr. Barton has already sought a separate 
>> analysis of the
>> hockey stick led by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason 
>> University, people
>> familiar with the matter said.
>>      --Anatonio Regalado, The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006
>>
>>
>> We are writing to protest three of the appointments to the Panel 
>> because of bias,
>> lack of objectivity and/or conflict of interest and to protest the 
>> failure of the
>> Panel as presently constituted to meet policies of the National 
>> Academy of Sciences
>> (NAS) regarding committee composition and balance.
>>       --Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd say NAS is on a path to make a hash of it. I am getting sick of 
>> watching government
>> violate its own procedures so that it may reach predetermined 
>> conclusions for the good
>> of the people. Procedures are there to protect the process. How can 
>> there be a good
>> outcome without a good process?
>>      --John G. Bell, Climate Audit, 24 February 2006
>>
>>
>>
>> I have no doubt that there are members of Barton's staff who are 
>> watching all this. If
>> it turns out to be a Kangaroo Court, I'll bet NAS will be called to 
>> task by some politicians.
>> I think this is an excellent opportunity to get some facts out on the 
>> table, and I am
>> hopeful about the outcome.
>>       --jae, Climate Audit, 25 February
>>
>>
>>
>> (1) NAS SCHEDULE
>>     Steve McIntyre, 24 February 2006
>>
>> (2) LETTER TO NAS ON PANEL COMPOSITION AND BALANCE
>>     Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006
>>
>> (3) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO REFEREE CLIMATE-CHANGE FIGHT
>>     Anatonio Regalado, The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006
>>
>> (4) CCNet AND CLIMATE CHANGE COVERAGE
>>       Geological Society of India 
>> <mailto:gsocind@gmail.com><gsocind@gmail.com>
>>
>> =============
>> (1) NAS SCHEDULE
>>
>> Steve McIntyre, 24 February 2006
>> <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=551>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=551
>>
>> Here's the appearance schedule. There are 10 presentations. Hughes 
>> and Mann each get a separate speaking slot while Ross and I are 
>> combined into one. It's a pretty blue-chip set of speakers.
>>
>> We get the last speaking spot on Thursday at the end of a long day, 
>> just before cocktails. Hughes and Mann get to wrap with two spots on 
>> Friday, Mann getting the last word.
>>
>> NAS has added a new member to the panel. (BTW three of the panel are 
>> either current or past UCAR trustees: North, Turekian and Dickinson, 
>> added to the two UCAR employees - Otto-Bliesen and Nychka.) It is a 
>> statistician, Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State, who has a 
>> lengthy resume with many interesting-looking papers. Bloomfield is a 
>> coauthor with Nychka in several publications. He is cited in two 
>> pers. comms. in Briffa et al [Holocene 2002] where Briffa describes 
>> how they went about estimating confidence intervals for their MXD 
>> reconstruction - you know, the one where they chop off the period 
>> after 1960. Out of all the statisticians in the world, why would they 
>> pick one who consulted on confidence intervals for one of the Hockey 
>> Team studies?
>>
>> Needless to say, they've paid no attention so far to any of our 
>> suggestions or comments on composition and balance. I wonder how they 
>> actually go about considering panel composition and balance. Anyway, 
>> it should be interesting.
>>
>> Schedule
>> Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the past 
>> 1,000-2,000 Years: Synthesis of Current Understanding and Challenges 
>> for the Future
>>
>> Meeting #1 Open Session Agenda
>> March 2-3, 2006
>> The National Academy of Sciences Building
>> 2100 C St. N.W., Washington, D.C.
>>
>> Thursday March 2, 2006 (Lecture Room)
>>
>> 8:30 A.M. Continental breakfast
>> 9:00 A.M. Welcome and introductions
>> 9:15 A.M. Invited Speaker: Henry Pollack (Michigan)
>> 10:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Daniel Schrag (Harvard)
>> 10:45 A.M. Break
>> 11:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Richard Alley (Penn State)
>> 11:45 A.M. Invited Speaker: Jrg Luterbacher (Bern)
>> 12:30 P.M. Lunch
>> 1:30 P.M. Invited Speaker: Rosanne D'Arrigo (Lamont)
>> 2:15 P.M. Invited Speaker: Gabriele Hegerl (Duke)
>> 3:00 P.M. Break
>> 3:15 P.M. Invited Speaker: Hans von Storch (GKSS)
>> 4:00 P.M. Invited Speaker: Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (Guelph)
>> 4:45 P.M. Break
>> 5:00 P.M. Open discussion
>> 5:30 P.M. Reception
>>
>> Friday March 3, 2006 (Lecture Room)
>> 8:30 A.M. Continental breakfast
>> 9:00 A.M. Invited Speaker: Malcolm Hughes (Arizona)
>> 9:45 A.M. Invited Speaker: Michael Mann (Penn State)
>> 10:30 A.M. Wrap-up / discussion
>> 11:00 A.M. Adjourn to closed session
>>
>> ===========
>> (2) LETTER TO NAS ON PANEL COMPOSITION AND BALANCE
>>
>> Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, 17 February 2006
>> <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=534>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=534
>>
>> The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has presumably been criticized 
>> in the past for the
>> composition of panels (from the evidence of the mere existence of the 
>> 1997 law on committee
>> balance and composition). This law and resulting policies provide for 
>> a comment period on
>> proposed committees. Ross and I have exercised our rights under this 
>> policy and today sent
>> the following letter to NAS.
>>
>> ------
>> We are writing to protest three of the appointments to the Panel 
>> because of bias, lack of
>> objectivity and/or conflict of interest and to protest the failure of 
>> the Panel as presently
>> constituted to meet policies of the National Academy of Sciences 
>> (NAS) regarding committee
>> composition and balance. We have suggested several alternatives whose 
>> appointment would at
>> least partly mitigate these problems.
>>
>> Dr. Otto-Bliesner
>>
>> The "Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of 
>> Interest for Committees Used
>> in the Development of Reports", a policy statement of the National 
>> Academy of Science (NAS)
>> issued in compliance with section 15 of the federal Advisory 
>> Committee Act, provides explicit
>> statements about the issues of bias, lack of objectivity and conflict 
>> of interest. It states,
>> with respect to conflict of interest:
>>
>>     It is essential that the work of committees of the institution 
>> used in the development
>>     of reports not be compromised by any significant conflict of 
>> interest. For this purpose,
>>     the term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other 
>> interest which conflicts with
>>     the service of the individual because it (1) could significantly 
>> impair the individual's
>>     objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage 
>> for any person or
>>     organization. Except for those situations in which the 
>> institution determines that a
>>     conflict of interest is unavoidable and promptly and publicly 
>> discloses the conflict of
>>     interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to 
>> serve) on a committee of
>>     the institution used in the development of reports if the 
>> individual has a conflict of
>>     interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed. [bold 
>> in original]
>>
>> and, with respect to bias and lack of objectivity:
>>
>>     Finally, it is essential that the work of committees that are 
>> used by the institution in
>>     the development of reports not be compromised by issues of bias 
>> and lack of objectivity. ...
>>     Questions of lack of objectivity and bias ordinarily relate to 
>> views stated or positions
>>     taken that are largely intellectually motivated or that arise 
>> from the close identification
>>     or association of an individual with a particular point of view 
>> or the positions or
>>     perspectives of a particular group
>>
>> The Panel is obviously going to have to consider our various 
>> criticisms of Mann et al. and will
>> undoubtedly hear reference to a national Media Advisory by UCAR in 
>> May 2005 declaring that UCAR
>> employee Caspar Ammann had shown that our various criticisms were 
>> "unfounded". This press release
>> has been relied upon in material presented to the U.S. Congress by 
>> Sir John Houghton of IPCC,
>> by Dr Mann and by the European Geophysical Union. Ammann has advised 
>> one of us that he has used
>> these two unpublished articles in his annual employment review at UCAR.
>>
>> One of the proposed panellists, Dr Otto-Bliesner, has not only been a 
>> frequent coauthor and
>> presenter with Ammann, but is Ammann's immediate supervisor at UCAR
>> (see 
>> <http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/paleo/images/Bette1.jpg>http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/paleo/images/Bette1.jpg). 
>> As such, she has presumably
>> considered Ammann's articles on our work in the course of carrying 
>> out Ammann's annual review.
>> We presume that she would have been involved in preparing and/or 
>> approving the UCAR press
>> release on Ammann's work last May. In addition, last year, she 
>> co-authored an article with
>> Bradley (of Mann, Bradley and Hughes) and served on a committee with 
>> him. It appears to us
>> that her association with Ammann rises to a conflict of interest 
>> within NAS policy, but, in
>> the alternative, her associations with Ammann and Bradley certainly 
>> rise to bias and lack of
>> objectivity. While she is undoubtedly a meritorious person, the field 
>> of candidates is not so
>> limited that her participation in the panel is necessary to its 
>> functioning and indeed her
>> continued participation might well diminish the actual and/or 
>> perceived ability of the panel
>> to provide objective advice. For example, *** would be an equally 
>> competent alternate without
>> the accompanying problems of bias, lack of objectivity and conflict 
>> of interest.
>>
>> Dr. Nychka
>>
>> Another proposed panellist, Dr Nychka, also a UCAR employee, is 
>> listed at Ammann's webpage as
>> presently collaborating not only with Ammann, but with Mann
>> (see 
>> <http://www.assessment.ucar.edu/paleo/past_stationarity.html>http://www.assessment.ucar.edu/paleo/past_stationarity.html). 
>> This ongoing collaboration
>> certainly creates the appearance of a "close identification or 
>> association of an individual
>> with a particular point of view or the positions or perspectives of a 
>> particular group". Again,
>> while Nychka is undoubtedly a meritorious person, the field of 
>> candidates is not so limited
>> that he is irreplaceable on the panel and indeed his continued 
>> participation might well
>> diminish both the actual ability and the perceived ability of the 
>> panel to provide objective
>> advice.
>>
>> Dr. Cuffey
>>
>> We are also concerned about apparent bias and lack of objectivity in 
>> a third proposed panellist,
>> Dr Cuffey, who in a newspaper op-ed recently wrote:
>>
>>     Mounting evidence has forced an end to any serious scientific 
>> debate on whether humans are
>>     causing global warming. This is an event of historical 
>> significance, but one obscured from
>>     public view by the arcane technical literature and the noise 
>> generated by perpetual
>>     partisans.   (see 
>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/09/ING5FF2U031.DTL&type=printable>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/09/ING5FF2U031.DTL&type=printable 
>> )
>>
>> The panel is being asked to consider the "historical significance" of 
>> present climate change. A
>> panellist who has a priori dismissed questions on the matter, some of 
>> which are necessarily
>> quite technical, as being "arcane" and "noise generated by perpetual 
>> partisans" can be
>> "reasonably perceived to be unwilling, to consider other perspectives 
>> or relevant evidence to
>> the contrary" as defined in NAS policy.
>>
>> Lack of Appropriate Expertise on Proposed Panel
>>
>> NAS policies require NAS committees to achieve standards of 
>> composition and balance. The
>> brochure "Ensuring Independent, Objective Advice" advertises that NAS 
>> committees provide"
>>
>>     "An appropriate range of expertise for the task. The committee 
>> must include experts with
>>     the specific expertise and experience needed to address the 
>> study's statement of task.
>>     One of the strengths of the National Academies is the tradition 
>> of bringing together
>>     recognized experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds who 
>> might not otherwise
>>     collaborate. These diverse groups are encouraged to conceive new 
>> ways of thinking about a
>>     problem."
>>
>> The NAS policy statement "Policy On Committee Composition And Balance 
>> And Conflicts Of Interest"
>> states:
>>
>>     For example, if a particular study requires the expertise of 
>> microbiologists, epidemiologists,
>>     statistical experts, and others with broader public health 
>> expertise, the significant
>>     omission of any required discipline from the committee might 
>> seriously compromise the
>>     quality of the committee's analysis and judgments, even though it 
>> is clear to all that the
>>     committee is composed of highly qualified and distinguished 
>> individuals. Even within a
>>     particular discipline, there may be very important differences 
>> and distinctions within the
>>     field, or regarding the particular subject matter to be 
>> addressed, that require careful
>>     consideration in the committee composition and appointment 
>> process....
>>
>> In our opinion, the committee as presently composed fails to comply 
>> with this policy on several
>> counts:
>>
>> 1. Without implying that any of the panellists are not "qualified and 
>> distinguished individuals"
>>    within the meaning of NAS policy, to our knowledge, none of the 
>> panellists would be regarded
>>    as experts in assessing statistical significance in multivariate 
>> models using highly
>>    autocorrelated time series, a central topics in the debate. While 
>> the panellists have all
>>    published articles that pertain to, or use, climate statistics, 
>> the issues currently being
>>    disputed call for specialist input. NAS policy requires attention 
>> to "important differences
>>    and distinctions within the field". We suggest that *** or *** 
>> would be qualified candidates
>>    in this respect.
>>
>> 2. To our knowledge, none of the panellists would be regarded as 
>> experts in the area of
>>    replication policy. The entire topic of replicability has been one 
>> of the most prominent
>>    aspects of disputes surrounding millennial paleoclimate studies. 
>> Indeed, it was only after
>>    Dr Mann was quoted on the front page of the Wall Street Journal as 
>> saying that he would not
>>    be "intimidated" into disclosing his algorithm that millennial 
>> reconstructions attracted the
>>    interest of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and, 
>> subsequently, the House Science
>>    Committee and National Academy of Science. Expertise in this area 
>> requires familiarity with
>>    journal policies, statistical methods, software evaluation, and 
>> the current literature on
>>    replication experiments. We suggest that *** would be a qualified 
>> candidate in this respect.
>>
>> 3. The issue of disclosure adequacy and possible omission of material 
>> results has also been one
>>    of the most prominent aspects of the debate. Last summer, the 
>> House Energy and Commerce
>>    Committee sent questions to Drs Mann, Bradley and Hughes regarding 
>> the omission of material
>>    results, such as the cross-validation R2 statistic and the impact 
>> of bristlecone pines. The
>>    President of the National Academy of Science wrote to the House 
>> Energy and Commerce Committee
>>    stating that a congressional committee was an inappropriate forum 
>> for the investigation of
>>    such matters and that a NAS expert panel would be more 
>> appropriate. We presume that the
>>    present panel has been composed at least in part in response to 
>> this initiative by the
>>    President of NAS. However, the panel as presently composed lacks 
>> any obvious expertise in
>>    this area. We suggest that NAS consider one or more of the members 
>> of the commission chaired
>>    by Kenneth Ryan on Integrity and Misconduct in Research as 
>> panellists.
>>
>> We further refer to the following NAS policy:
>>
>>     A balance of perspectives. Having the right expertise is not 
>> sufficient for success. It is
>>     also essential to evaluate the overall composition of the 
>> committee in terms of different
>>     experiences and perspectives. The goal is to ensure that the 
>> relevant points of view are,
>>     in the National Academies' judgment, reasonably balanced so that 
>> the committee can carry
>>     out its charge objectively and credibly.
>>
>> and elsewhere:
>>
>>     For some studies, for example, it may be important to have an 
>> "industrial" perspective or
>>     an "environmental" perspective. This is not because such 
>> individuals are "representatives"
>>     of industrial or environmental interests, because no one is 
>> appointed by the institution to
>>     a study committee to represent a particular point of view or 
>> special interest. Rather it is
>>     because such individuals, through their particular knowledge and 
>> experience, are often
>>     vital to achieving an informed, comprehensive, and authoritative 
>> understanding and analysis
>>     of the specific problems and potential solutions to be considered 
>> by the committee.
>>
>> Aside from the particular expertise of *** and ***, our own 
>> criticisms of paleoclimate practices
>> and policies are very much influenced by our own experiences in 
>> handling economic and business
>> data. Analysis of time series data is a common issue for economics 
>> and paleoclimatology. Many
>> issues studied by econometricians are highly pertinent to 
>> paleoclimate applications and yet
>> come from points of view that are different, and different in ways 
>> that the panel will find
>> constructive to consider. In our view, econometrics has superior 
>> methodologies to paleoclimatology
>> in addressing problems of spurious inference and data mining in the 
>> presence of strong
>> autocorrelation and integrated processes. Paleoclimatologists, 
>> including even some of the
>> panelists, have applied some econometric methods, but that is no 
>> substitute for the "point of
>> view" or for up-to-date specialization.
>>
>> Stephen McIntyre
>> Ross McKitrick
>>
>> ==========
>> (3) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES TO REFEREE CLIMATE-CHANGE FIGHT
>>
>> The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006
>> <http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113953482702870250-lL0PQujuK91SekAUig_yMlPDBuY_20070209.html?mod=public_home_us_inside_today>http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113953482702870250-lL0PQujuK91SekAUig_yMlPDBuY_20070209.html?mod=public_home_us_inside_today 
>>
>>
>> Scientists' Group Agrees To Congressional Request to Study 
>> Temperature-History Charting
>>
>> By ANTONIO REGALADO
>>
>> The Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2006
>>
>> Seeking to resolve a scientific dispute that has taken on a rancorous 
>> political edge, the
>> National Academy of Sciences said it had agreed to a request from 
>> Congress to assess how well
>> researchers understand the history of temperatures on earth.
>>
>> The study by the academy, an independent advisory body based in 
>> Washington, will focus on the
>> "hockey stick," a chart of past temperatures that critics say is 
>> inaccurate. The graph gets its
>> name because of the sudden, blade-like rise of recent temperatures 
>> compared with past epochs.
>>
>> The controversy took a sharp political turn in July when Rep. Joe 
>> Barton (R., Texas), head of
>> the House Energy and Commerce Committee, launched a probe into the 
>> work of three climate
>> specialists who generated the graph, including Michael Mann, now a 
>> professor at Pennsylvania
>> State University.
>>
>> Mr. Barton's inquiry drew a rebuke from several scientific societies 
>> as well as fellow Republican
>> Sherwood Boehlert of New York, chairman of the House Committee on 
>> Science, who called it a
>> blatant effort to intimidate global-warming researchers.
>>
>> After Mr. Barton didn't respond to an offer to jointly bring the 
>> issue to the National Academy,
>> Mr. Boehlert independently asked for a review in November, science 
>> committee chief of staff
>> David Goldston said. "It appeared that the issue was not going to go 
>> away by itself. We thought
>> this was an appropriate way to get an assessment of the science," Mr. 
>> Goldston said in an
>> interview.
>>
>> Larry Neal, deputy staff director for Mr. Barton's committee, said in 
>> a statement that because
>> "combating climate change is a breathtakingly expensive prospect," it 
>> deserved closer study,
>> and that the academy was "unlikely" to address all of Mr. Barton's 
>> concerns.
>>
>> Mr. Barton has already sought a separate analysis of the hockey stick 
>> led by statistician Edward
>> Wegman of George Mason University, people familiar with the matter 
>> said. Dr. Wegman couldn't be
>> reached yesterday.
>>
>> Using records stored in ice, tree rings, and coral reefs, scientists 
>> including Dr. Mann have
>> estimated that current air temperatures exceed any in the past 1,000 
>> years. Such findings are
>> not only evidence for man-made global warming, but also underlie 
>> predictions of future temperature
>> rises.
>>
>> An 11-member academy panel will now study the accuracy and importance 
>> of such research, in
>> particular the work of Dr. Mann, whose hockey-stick graph was 
>> included in a report issued by
>> the United Nations in 2001. An academy spokesman said the report 
>> would be completed in about
>> four months.
>>
>> Dr. Mann's critics, including two amateur Canadian climate 
>> researchers, say his work contains
>> serious inaccuracies. Dr. Mann has denied that, but the debate has 
>> prompted several climate
>> researchers to take a fresh look at temperature reconstructions.
>>
>> While some recent publications have found fault with the hockey stick 
>> and similar studies,
>> others have sought to rebut critics.
>>
>> The debate comes as many scientists express growing alarm over the 
>> warming trend. The planet
>> has warmed more than one degree over the past century, and recent 
>> heating is widely blamed on
>> greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
>>
>> More than 150 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an 
>> international agreement to slash
>> gas emissions by 2012. The U.S. hasn't signed the treaty, which the 
>> Bush administration has
>> said is ineffective and would slow economic growth.
>>
>> Write to Antonio Regalado at 
>> <mailto:antonio.regalado@wsj.com>antonio.regalado@wsj.com
>>
>> Copyright 2006, The Wall Street Journal
>>
>>
>> ======= LETTERS =======
>>
>> (4) CCNet AND CLIMATE CHANGE COVERAGE
>>
>> Geological Society of India 
>> <mailto:gsocind@gmail.com><gsocind@gmail.com>
>>
>> Dr. Peiser,
>>
>> A few months ago I sent you a short note of appreciation of the 
>> excellent and balanced way in
>> which you are covering recent developments on subjects like climate 
>> change, asteroid impacts,
>> mass extinction etc. In a recent issue (CCNet, 33/6, 20th February 
>> 2006) I find a criticism
>> leveled against you for not giving publicity to views that are not in 
>> agreement with your own.
>> This is an unfair criticism. You have been very impartial in setting 
>> out all views. We could
>> not have obtained a clear picture on different view points in any 
>> other Journal. We all owe you
>> a deep debt of gratitude for the excellent service you are rendering 
>> the cause of science.
>>
>> B P Radhakrishna, President, Geological Society of India
>>
>> ----------------
>> CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To 
>> subscribe
>> or unsubscribe, send an e-mail to 
>> <mailto:listserver@livjm.ac.uk>listserver@livjm.ac.uk
>> ("subscribe cambridge-conference" / "unsubscribe cambridge-conference").
>> Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and 
>> educational use only.
>> The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any 
>> other purposes
>> without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The 
>> opinions,
>> beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in 
>> other CCNet
>> contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and 
>> viewpoints
>> of the editor. 
>> <http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis>http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Gabriele Hegerl
>> Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences,
>> Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
>> Box 90227
>> Duke University, Durham NC 27708
>> Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833
>> email: <mailto:hegerl@duke.edu>hegerl@duke.edu, 
>> http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html
>
>
> -- 
> Professor Keith Briffa,
> Climatic Research Unit
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
>
> Phone: +44-1603-593909
> Fax: +44-1603-507784
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gabriele Hegerl 
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences, 
Nicholas School for the Environment and Earth Sciences,
Box 90227
Duke University, Durham NC 27708
Ph: 919 684 6167, fax 684 5833  
email: hegerl@duke.edu, http://www.env.duke.edu/faculty/bios/hegerl.html


</x-flowed>
