cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:32:32 +0100
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: MBH98
to: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>,rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu,Scott Rutherford <srutherford@rwu.edu>, hfd@ncdc.noaa.gov

    Dear All,
         I've had several emails from Steve McIntyre. He comes across in these as friendly,
   but
    then asks for more and more. I have sent him some station temperature data in the past,
    but eventually had to stop replying to me. Last time he emailed me directly was in
   relation
    to the Mann/Jones GRL paper. That time he wanted the series he used. I suspect that
    he is the person who sent the email around about only 7 of the 23 series used by Ray et
   al.
    being in WDC-Paleo. I told him then that he needs to get in contact with the relevant
   paleo
    people.  It seems only Mike, Ray and me got this email from Timo, so I'll forward it.
          He names the worst offenders (ie those not putting data on WDC-Paleo) as being
    Cook, Mosley-Thompson, Hughes and Briffa  !! He clearly should go to a few paleo meetings
    to find out what is really out there. Last week I saw the Patzold Bermuda coral record
   again.
    It is now 1000 years long and all there is an unwritten paper !
         The second email I'm forwarding is one from Bill Kininmonth. I've met Bill several
   times
    at WMO meetings and in Australia. Bill has retired now. When I knew him he knew very
    little about paleo. I wouldn't bother replying, unless you want to go into chapter and
   verse
    and don't think through Timo. I would like to believe Bill would be receptive, but it
   would take
    time. You could suggest, Ray, he reads your book rather than Lamb's, but from his tone
   that
    might not go down too well !  Both Hubert's books in the early 1990s are basically updates
    of his 1974/77 books, with more references and in a chattier style.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 11:14 19/10/2003 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:

     FYI--thought you guys should have this (below). This guy "McIntyre" appears to be yet
     another shill for industry--he appears to be the one who forwarded the  the scurrilous
     "climateskeptic" criticisms of the recent Bradley et al Science paper.
     Here is an email I sent him a few weeks ago in response to an inquiry. It appears, by
     the way, that he has been trying to break into our machine ("multiproxy"). Obviously,
     this character is looking for any little thing he can get ahold of. The irony here, of
     course, is that simple composites of proxy records (e.g. Bradley and Jones; Mann and
     Jones, etc) give very similar results to the pattern reconstruction approaches (Mann et
     al EOF approach, Rutherford et al RegEM approach), so anyone looking to criticize the
     basic NH temperature history based on details of  e.g. the Mann et al '98 methodology
     are misguided in their efforts...
     The best that can be done is to ignore their desperate emails and, if they manage to
     slip something into the peer-reviewed literature, as in the case of Soon & Baliunas,
     deal w/ it as we did in that case--i.e., the Eos response to Soon et al---they were
     stung badly by that, and the bad press that followed.For those of you who haven't seen
     it, I'm forwarding an interesting email exchange from John Holdren of Harvard that  I
     got the other day. He summarized the whole thing very nicely, form an independent
     perspective...
     Cheers,
     mike
     p.s. I'm setting up my email server so that it automatically rejects emails from the
     "usual suspects".  You might want to do the same. As they increasingly get automatic
     reject messages from the scientists, they'll start to get the picture...

     Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:33 -0400
     To: "Steve McIntyre" <smcintyre@cgxenergy.com>
     From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
     Subject: Re: MBH98
     Bcc: Scott Rutherford <srutherford@gso.uri.edu>, mann@virginia.edu
     Dear Mr. McIntyre,
     A few of the series terminate prior to the nominal 1980 termination date of the
     calibration period (the earliest such instance, as you note, is 1971). In such cases,
     the data were continued to the 1980 boundary by persistence of the final available
     value. These details in fact, were provided in the supplementary information that
     accompanied the Nature article. That information is available here (see first
     paragraph):
     [1]ftp://eclogite.geo.umass.edu/pub/mann/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/MultiProxy/data-supp.html
     and here:
     [2]http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/data_supp.html
     The results, incidentally, are insensitive to this step; essentially the same
     reconstruction is achieved if a calibration period terminating in 1970 (prior to the
     termination of any of the proxy series) was used instead.
     Owing to numerous demands on my time, I will not be able to respond to further
     inquiries.
     Other researchers have successfully implemented our methodology based on the information
     provided in our articles  [see e.g. Zorita, E., F. Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke,
     Testing the Mann et al. (1998) approach to paleoclimate reconstructions in the context
     of a 1000-yr control simulation with the ECHO-G Coupled Climate Model, J. Climate, 16,
     1378-1390, 2003.]. I trust, therefore, that you will find (as in this case) that all
     necessary details are provided in the papers we have published or the supplementary
     information links provided by those papers.
     Best of luck with your work.
     Sincerely,
     Michael E. Mann
     At 05:28 PM 9/25/2003 -0400, Steve McIntyre wrote:

     Dear Prof Mann,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
     />
     Here is the pcproxy.txt file sent to me last April by Scott Rutherford at your
     direction.  It contains some missing data after 1971. Your 1998 paper does not describe
     how missing data in this period is treated and I wanted to verify that it is the correct
     file. How did you handle missing data in this period? In earlier periods, it looks like
     you changed the roster of proxies in each of the periods described in the Supplementary
     Information using only proxies available throughout the entire period. I have obtained
     quite close replication of the rpc1 in the 20th century by calculating coefficients for
     the proxies and then calculating the rpc's using the minimization procedures described
     in MBH98 and the selection of PCs in the Supplementary Information.  The reconstruction
     is less close in earlier periods.  I also don't understand the reasoning for reducing
     the roster of eigenvectors in earlier periods.  The description in MBH98 was necessarily
     very terse and is still very terse in the Supplementary Information; is there any more
     detailed description of the reconstruction methodology to help me resolve this? Thank
     you for your attention.
     Yours truly,
     Steve McIntyre,
     Toronto, Canada


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

     ______________________________________________________________
                         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
              [4]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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

