date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:12:57 -0400
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
subject: Re: hockey stick debate
to: "D.W. Pearce" <d.pearce@ucl.ac.uk>

   Dear Dr. Pearce,
   Thanks for your inquiy.
   Indeed, there have been detailed rebuttal's by me directly (on the website
   "RealClimate.org" and also e.g. on the BBC, links available here:
   [1]http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/news/news.html
    but perhaps more importantly, the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick have now been
   independnetly discredited independently by at least two research groups (and several others
   that have submitted papers for review recently). There a discussion of this (and some
   relevant links) on the RealClimate.org website. In particular, see the latest posting
   "Scientists Respond to Barton", especially the "Response of Michael Mann" that is linked to
   below.
   You might want to look specifically at the press release (and extensive supporting material
   provided) by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) from a couple months
   ago, describing the work of an independent group of scientists who have established deep
   flaws in the McIntyre and McKitrick claims
   [2]http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
   (there is a link to the abstracts of their papers, one on them is currently iin revision,
   the other is in press).
   Also, you should note this additional paper by Rutherford et al discrediting the McIntyre
   and McKitrick claims, to appear next month in the "Journal of Climate" is available here
   (click on hyperlink for  first article
   in list):
   [3]http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/articles/articles.html
   I hope this information if of help to you. For independent commentary by other scientists
   familiar w/ the details of this work, you might  contact Caspar Ammann of NCAR
   ([4]ammann@ucar.edu) or Gavin Schmidt of the NASA/GISS Laboratory in New York
   ([5]gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov), Stefan Rahmstorf of the Univ. of Potsdam, UK
   ([6]rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de), or Tim Osborn of the UK Met Office ([7]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk).
   Sincereley,
   mike mann
   I am travelling for the next 2 weeks and may be difficult to reach, but I hope this
   information is of some help to you. In addition, you might want to contact
   D.W. Pearce wrote:

   Dear Professor Mann, I wonder if you can help me. I recently acted as advisor to the House
   of Lords inquiry into climate change economics. Their Lordships were keen to take a brief
   look at some of the scientific controversies, even though the committee in question is an
   economics committee and I am an economist too. As such, they did not pass judgement on the
   science but recorded issues that they thought needed to be better aired. One of these was
   the famous hocky stick debate and the committee received quite a lot of evidence on the
   debate. I did my best to search the literature and your own webpage to see if anyone had
   published a refutation of the McKitrick/McIntyre critique which I am sure you know about. I
   was unable to find any refutation and the committee simply recorded that they had not seen
   one and they thought that some effort should be made on the part of the scientific
   community to make that refutation.



   In a review of the Lords report, one critic (Tom Burke, whom you probably won't know but is
   an ex-advisor to a past Secretary of State for the Environment in the UK) states that 'They
   (the Lords) might have tried listening to the Today programme. The author [yourself] gave a
   detailed rebuttal on air in February of this year. They could also have tried Google. If so
   they would have found links not only  to Michael Mann's detailed rebuttals but also to the
   findings of several other research groups who, using different data and different
   methodologies, have reproduced Mann's orginal result in all essential respects'.



   Mr Burke read the Lords report rather too hastily since the other research work is referred
   to in the Lords Report, as are papers finding significant  'blips' in in the temperature
   history and to which he makes no reference. However, I have been unable to download what
   appear to be your broadcasts on your webpage and I wondered if you have a transcript in
   e-form that I might see. Alternatively you may have issued some other refutation of the
   McKitrick-McIntyre critique - if so I have not been able to find it. I should add that it
   is only this critique that the Lords referred to and not to any other.



   I am anxious not to mislead their Lordships, who will reply to Mr Burke. Their report will
   also be debated in the House of Lords later this year.



   If you can help this would be much appreciated. If I don't hear from you I will assume that
   the Lords were right in their initial statement that the debate continues.



   Sorry to trouble you with this.



   David Pearce





   Professor David W Pearce OBE, D.Sc
   tel: +44 (0)20 7679 5898
   fax: +44 (0)20 7916 2772/5
   [8]e-mail:d.pearce@ucl.ac.uk

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology              Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building                    FAX:   (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University      email:  [9]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

[10]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

