date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:17:37 +0100
from: Jan Esper <esper@wsl.ch>
subject: Re: Science review
to: "Cook, Ed" <drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>, "Briffa, Prof. Dr. Keith" <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

Dear Ed and Keith,

as you might know, I am also not happy with the way our result is
discussed between you and also between Ed and others. Please keep in
mind that the result is the growth curve itself and the description of
the way we produced the curve.

When I was working on that curve and applying some perhaps strange ideas
(mixing sites and species before standardization), the only thing I was
interested in was Ed's opinion. So, I was quite nervous when Ed came
back from Tasmania and we had a long discussion on what I did in the
last couple of weeks. That day, when Ed told me that the curve is highly
useful, was one of the best days in my lets say "scientific career". And
when I noticed that he is spending his time to improve the result and
also added some useful confidence limits (following your (Keith's)
advice) meant more to me than any written or spoken word of support.
From here on, I knew that the months I spent to study growth levels and
age-related trends in a huge data set were not senseless.

To be clear, you two are the most experienced and best
dendroclimatologists on this planet. Now, what to do, if you don't agree
on the way a result is introduced (please Keith, keep in mind that you
also like the result = curve and agree that it is a highly useful
curve)? I am 100% sure that there is only one answer: You have to accept
each others opinion. If you don't do this, we have a serious problem in
our field of research!

I don't know Wally Broecker that good, but I had the chance to talk to
him (and others) and to present our curve. To be also on this point
clear, I really don't care who in the broader scientific community is
fighting with or against Wally. The more or less only important
experience I had with Wally, is that he is able to say that he was wrong
with the sentence about tree rings he has published in his February
science piece. He did this in front of like 50 people, and he has
obviously no problem that he will (again) called wrong in our paper.
Isn't this "reaction" scientific and professional?

I am also not 100% sure whether we should address the point that Wally
(and some others) don't read dendrochronological literature so
intensively. By the way, I also believe that requesting reading "our
journals" is a nice try, but does not meet the reality. That's why it
was important to gave three talks in a row to these people, and that's
also the reason why it is important to publish the result (!)  in a
journal these scientists read.

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while
saying it is an important one. Come on Keith, you know much better than
I do, that the curve is what counts. The curve will make its way. The
curve might be improved, perhaps by you, Rosanne or others... It will
also be shown that the curve is very similar to the one you produced
from 4 high latitude sites. And the curve will also show that the IPCC
curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining
trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann
merged the local records together.  So, why don't you want to let the
result into science? And why don't you accept that Ed (not me!) has a
different opinion - especially if it is only about the way the curve is
introduced?

Take care,
Jan

--
Dr. Jan Esper
Swiss Federal Institute WSL
Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf
Switzerland
Phone:  +41-1-739 2510
Fax:    +41-1-739 2215
Email:  esper@wsl.ch


