date: Tue Jul  3 17:02:56 2007
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Mitrie
to: Martin Juckes <m.n.juckes@rl.ac.uk>, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, m.allen1@physics.ox.ac.uk, weber@knmi.nl

   KEITH IMPORTANT -- please take a look at the bit highlighted by Martin below because I
   don't think it is quite right (though perhaps not greatly wrong).  e.g. rather than
   "different" group of trees, perhaps one is a "subset" of the other?  Plus some used
   combination of density+ring-width, others just ring-width?
   Cheers
   Tim
   At 16:41 03/07/2007, Martin Juckes wrote:

     Hello,
     another version of our paper is attached.
     I've added the following paragraph to the discussion of Table 1, and I'd be
     grateful if Jan and Keith could check that it is accurate:
     "Evaluation of past work is further compicated by confusion between closely
     related proxy series. In Tab.~1 there are two series referred to as
     Tornetraesk: that used by ECS2002 is based on the same tree-ring data as that
     used by MSH2005, but with a different standardisation method. The
     Fennoscandia data used by JBB1998, MBH1999 also come from the Tornetraesk
     area, but from a different group of trees. The Polar Urals series used by
     ECS2005 is also a reanalysis of the data used to create the Northern Urals
     series used by JBB1998, MBH1999. The Taymir data used by HCA2007 is a
     smoothed version of that used in ECS2002, MSH2005.
     The Greenland stack data used by MBH1999 is a composite of data analysed by
     \citet{fisher_etal1996}, but the precise nature of the composite is not
     described by \citet{fisher_etal1996}."
     I've also moved a few things around and tried to follow most of the
     suggestions from Anders and Nanne. I've kept the phrase about "serious flaws"
     in the conclusion, despite Tim's suggestion, supported by Nanne, of a weaker
     wording, because I think it is important to draw attention to the serious
     flaws which are there. One reviewer has implied that we should not discuss
     flawed work at length because in oding so we give it credibility it does not
     deserve. I believe that since this stuff is published and influential in some
     quarters we should discuss it and draw attention to the fact that it is
     seriously flawed.
     cheers,
     Martin
