date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:06:54 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: clarification re Mann / McKitrick andMcIntyre <fwd>
to: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.UCAR.EDU>, tom crowley <tom@ocean.tamu.edu>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@duke.edu>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, mann@virginia.edu

   Dear All,
   We have an official response to be submitted shortly for peer-review.  We will send the
   response to all of you for your comments, whether or not you get it for review. We hope to
   have it finalized within a week or so, depending on Ray's ability to read and comment while
   travelling. This will provide more of the details behind our "initial" response...
   It is best to let things play out this way. These folks appear to have some very large
   industry groups behind them running  the show, setting up forums for them on capitol hill
   (the latest sponsored by the infamous "Marshall Institute") and its best for scientists not
   to exchange any emails with them--they will only quote you out of context and misrepresent
   your comments.
   Please feel free to contact me to discuss further. So I strongly advise against any
   scientists communicating with these people. Understand that anything you send to them, you
   are giving to a highly organized industry PR firm that is behind this effort. An
   investigative reporter in the media may be revealing the dubious details behind this in an
   article in the near future.
   Please feel free to contact me to discuss further,
   mike
   At 12:53 PM 11/12/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:

     Dear all,
     I'm forwarding this because I'm not sure which of you received it.
     I'm also not sure which of you would want to have received it - apologies if you've had
     enough of this sort of thing, you can probably predict most of the contents and it is
     rather long!
     One thing I will add which may be of more interest...
     McIntyre has emailed me asking whether (under certain terms and conditions!) we (Keith,
     Phil and I) would "examine" (review?) part of their response to the Mann et al.
     preliminary response.
     I haven't yet discussed this with Keith and Phil, who are away, but there a some clear
     reasons to decline their request, so I think it unlikely that we will say yes.
     Regards
     Tim

     From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk>
     Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:18:11 +0000
     To: gavin_Watson@hotmail.com, Aynsley Kellow <akellow@utas.edu.au>
     Subject: Fwd: Re: clarification re Mann / McKitrick andMcIntyre <fwd>
     Cc: gsmith@socsci.soton.ac.uk, climatesceptics@yahoogroups.com,
             Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Bob Ferguson <bferguson@ff.org>
     Priority: NORMAL
     X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
     Dear All,
     The letter below makes good reading and its author (Aynsley) is
     thanked! It is a welcome 'defence' of E&E in the current furore over
     another paper (by McIntyre and McKitrick  'Corrections to Mann
     et al..' about to appear in print but already on the multi-science web
     page)  the IPCC community does not like because it comes from outsiders
     and challenges the consensus of the 'climate science community'.
     (Also see 'The Economist' this week, which takes up the Castles and
     Henderson paper from earlier this year [14 2/3] and suggests that
     Treasuries may at least be taking an interests in the IPCC ).
     I am sending this beyond the original people involved because
     Prof. Mann has allowed much of this particular 'hocky stick' debate to
     appear on a web site run by a journalist - see below - and also because
     my UK colleagues in political science and International Relations
     have, as far as I know, completely ignored the book by Aynsley and me.
     One UK political scientist a few years and who should have known better
     because he had studied the attempts of the coal industry to discredit
     the IPCC (this failed), dismissed my work as conspiracy theory. One
     Australian/ WMO meteorologist did the same more recently when
     reviewing  the book by Aynsley and me (International Environmental
     Policy: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process, Edward Elgar
     Publishing, November 2002). He may be forgiven for he had an interest to
     defend.
     We do not put forward conspiracy theories, but talk about a
     flexible coalition of advocacy based on interests, ideology and some
     science still plagued by much uncertainty;  lots of baptists are
     forming 'partnerships' with boot-leggers, the research enterprise being
     just one of  (often reluctant) many partners in the 'decarbonisation'
     by subsidisation (and vice versa) game.
     Sonja
     --- Begin Forwarded Message ---
     Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:15:57 +1100
     From: Aynsley Kellow <akellow@utas.edu.au>
     Subject: Fwd: Re: clarification
     Sender: Aynsley Kellow <akellow@utas.edu.au>
     To: rbradley@geo.umass.edu
     Cc: Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk, "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>,
     , "David R. Legates" <legates@udel.edu>, Eigil
     Friis-Christensen <efc@dsri.dk>, rmckitri@uoguelph.ca
     Reply-To: Aynsley Kellow <akellow@utas.edu.au>
     Message-ID: <v04210104bbd5e77b94d5@[131.217.125.10]>
     Dear Professor Bradley,
     I have been meaning to respond to your message to Sonja
     Boehmer-Christiansen, but many other duties have  conspired to deny
     me the time to do so. I think it is important that I do so,
     particularly because of the nature of the extraordinary attack on her
     for daring to publish the M&M paper in E&E.
     I should declare that I recently co-authored a book with Sonja, and
     recently accepted an invitation to join the Editorial Board of E&E,
     having previously published two papers with it. I speak, therefore,
     with some exerience of both Sonja and the journal. The journal can
     stand by its own reputation - by the quality of its multidisciplinary
     content (which is always likely to provoke occasional controversy),
     but I am disturbed by the attacks on Sonja, which have been personal
     and included derogatory comments.
     Sonja has an excellent track record of publication in science
     politics and policy, including both research monographs and articles
     in leading journals, including Nature, Energy Policy, Environmental
     Politics, and Global Environmental Change. She is perhaps unequalled
     in her understanding of the issues involved and is widely cited by
     those on all sides of the climate change issue. The attack on her
     character is regrettable, all the more so because it has been
     conducted under protection of anonymity, thanks largely to the manner
     in which Dr Mann first engaged the M&M paper.
     For reasons best known to him, Dr Mann responded to this paper first
     on David Appell's blog 'Quark Soup' - an unfortunate choice, I must
     say.  (Dr Appell reported Dr Mann's initial response at 8.02 am on 29
     October - two days before the first draft of your collective initial
     response was posted on the East Anglia site). I was not previously
     familiar with this blog - there is an awful lot of junk in cyberspace
     and it is hard to track it all.  Dr Appell professes to be a
     journalist, but his blog lies squarely in the realm of commentary,
     and provides a forum for anonymous gratuitous comment of the kind
     that no quality newspaper allows. It is a practice permitted by the
     tabloid press, perhaps fittingly, because that is the quality of
     journal which might reprint Sonja's e-mail to Dr Mann - deliberately
     circulated widely - and trumpet that it had obtained a copy of a
     'leaked e-mail'.
     To further illustrate my point about quality, Dr Appell also slurs
     Theodor Landscheidt under the heading 'E&E publishes an astrologer!',
     when Landscheidt's book is quite cleary an evidenced-based critique
     of atsrology. He also describes the critique of SRES published by Ian
     Castles and David Henderson as 'a third specious paper published
     recently by Energy and Environment'. For the record, Castles is a
     former Government Statistician and Head of the Finance Department in
     the Australian Government, and (until recently) was Vice-President of
     the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. David Henderson was
     formerly Head of the Economics Department at the OECD. Prior to
     drawing attention to problems with SRES, Castles did much the same
     with the misuse of statistics in the UNDP World Development Report, a
     matter which was referred to the UN Statistical Commission, which
     upheld his critique.
     Dr Appell seems to have his loyal retinue of readers, though I see
     that few other than a couple of characters called 'Uncle E' and
     'Dano' bother to contribute their anonymous patter. All the more
     surprising, then, that Dr Mann would select a medium such as this as
     his outlet. (Indeed, he gave his permission for e-mails between
     himslef and M&M to be posted).
     Ironically, Dr Appell's website incorporates a quotation by Heinrich
     Heine about book-burning. The irony lies in the calls by Dr Appell
     and his acolytes for the non-publication of M&M and other pieces
     which do not accord with his position on the issue, and the
     celebration of the resignation of members of editorial boards from
     journals for publishing (or, most recently, intending to publish)
     work they disagreed with (or, most recently, by people they disagree
     with, since there is no suggestion that Professor Hulme has even seen
     the piece over which he is resigning). I suppose if we can suppress
     publication of books (and articles) we can save ourselves the trouble
     of burning them!
     It is entirely appropriate that Sonja should invite Mann et al to
     respond to the M&M paper, but I think you are wrong in expecting that
     you should have been given access to the paper before any decision
     was made to publish.
     Had the M&M paper simply been a comment on Mann et al, then it
     probably should have been written as a letter to Nature, and referred
     to Mann, yourself and Hughes for a rejoinder. But it was much more
     than that, and they have stated quite explicitly why they wished a
     longer piece to be considered for publication. As a paper in it's own
     right, the authors had every reason to have it subjected to review as
     a paper in any journal they chose. As such, it would have been wholly
     inappropriate for it to be sent to any of the Mann et al authors for
     review, as to do so would have placed you  in a conflict of interest:
     reviewing a paper which reflected critically on your work. Moreover,
     Dr Mann (as I understand it) quite explicitly cut off communication
     with M&M before the paper was completed and submitted. M&M cannot
     then be held responsible for your lack of involvement in the final
     version.
     As you rightly note, in peer review there should be an independence
     between the authors and the reviewers. This cuts both ways: there
     should be no positive or negative relationship between them. But peer
     review is not the only determinant of science, important as it is.
     The US Supreme Court (in Daubert v Merril Dow) has provided a good
     statement of what constitutes scientific evidence. Publication after
     anonymous peer review is an important part of that, but so too is the
     requirement that it should have withstood several attempts at
     verification or falsification.
     I guess many of us have had concerns over the treatment of Mann et al
     in IPCC TAR on these very grounds: Mann being a lead author, TAR
     being drafted before exactly the the kind of paper M&M have written
     could have appeared, the political use of the implications of the
     paper (especially given the combination of proxy and instrumental
     data, when science without political purpose would have been
     satisfied with merely the proxy reconstruction). The production of a
     consensus (especially by an Intergovernmental Panel) is an inherently
     political process, and that is where Sonja and I have our interest
     and expertise. But we both know that science is controversial, and
     attempts to create and enforce consensus are not typical of the usual
     way in which science is progressed.
     For the record, while we think TAR erred in allowing new storylines
     rather than new science (as Tom Wigley has pointed out) to drive a
     new upper limit to the temperature range which is improbable in the
     extreme, Sonja and I are on the record as stating we consider we are
     probably in for 1-3 deg C of warming and that something less than
     this is probably anthropogenic. We see much unresolved uncertainty in
     the science. We are critical of the Kyoto Protocol as a policy
     instrument and of the Kyoto process as a means of developng policy
     instruments - but that is our expertise.
     Regardless of the outcome of Mann et al vs M&M, it is quite clear
     that science will have been advanced as a result of the attempt of
     both teams to further our understanding of complex and important
     issues.
     I would suggest, however, that science is best advanced by conducting
     the terms of the debate on civil terms, and in media where
     participants are prepared to stand by their views and opinions. I get
     very worried when I see ad hominem  attacks, along with commission of
     the genetic fallacy, use of argumentum ad populum., etc. My first
     reaction is to think that those using them do so in desperation in
     the absence of an argument. So please let's conduct the debate
     according to accepted rules, and submit your reponse to E&E. If it
     holds water, it stands the test of time - that's the deal with
     science. If M&M are wrong, show how and why.
     Incidentally, I agree with Sonja on your depiction of the politics of
     science. You would fail introductory political science with such a
     caricatured account of the manner in which politics might influence
     science. There are staw men everywhere! If you want a better
     appreciation removed from the cut and thrust of climate science, try
     Robert Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton UP). Study
     question: why was German science and policy on tobacco at least 20
     years ahead of Sir Richard Doll in the UK and the US Surgeon-General?
     Best,
     Aynsley Kellow
     >From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk>
     >Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:43:32 +0000
     >To: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>
     >Subject: Re: clarification
     >Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>, L.A.Love@hull.ac.uk,
     >   "David R. Legates" <legates@udel.edu>, Aynsley Kellow
     ><akellow@utas.edu.au>,
     >   Eigil Friis-Christensen <efc@dsri.dk>
     >Priority: NORMAL
     >Status: RO
     >
     >Dear Raymond, or should I say Dear Distinguished Professor Bradley?
     >
     >You clearly are not a political scientist, not that this matters, but
     >ignorance tends to lead to simplification by all of us, and I do
     >include myself as far as your work is concerned. Where I disagree with
     >you is summarised below. I hope you forgive the wider participating
     >audience, for you are making a few points about peer review and
     >publication issues were a wider debate is essential for me and my
     >position as editor.
     >
     > >From my perspective your argument about US policy is wrong: there is no
     >such thing as 'a ' government and the politics I talk about is rarely
     >confined to political parties, except for very few decisions. Ratifying
     >a treaty is one of them.
     >I know enough about the USA to be sure that many of its parts (DOE, EA,
     >sections of the State Department and by now all departments with
     >significant research budgets) are in favour of Kyoto..and hence see
     >global warming as a serious threat,  a threat that 'enables' them
     >without asking for much now. Bureaucracies like such issues. Met one of
     >your chaps only yesterday, at Chatham House, Royal Institute for
     >International Affairs, a Richard Bradley for US DOE International
     >Affairs who poked a lot of fun at Bush and friends...and made it quite
     >clear where he stood, and that was with Kyoto. The resistance in US
     >(and Australia and Russia) does not come primarily from  the middle and
     >lower  sections of the administrative machinery, but from top
     >politicians and the  Senate, that is from people accountable to
     >electors. Support for Kyoto  does come from the ENRONs and all those
     >who want subsidies in one form of another, less from those that have to
     >raise the money for decarbonisation and emission buying.
     >(I am in favour of subsidies and hence taxes if they solve real
     >problems, but not when they go to fund visions and model predictions.)
     > I know quite a lot about how governments work; one friend negotiated
     >UNFCC for one country I am familiar with. In another country I know
     >well, I know top scientists who will say one thing in public and
     >another in private....but gots loads of money to study carbon, and
     >doing useful science.  Even the geologists are now persuaded that
     >carbon is a threat, look at the sequestration issue in geological
     >formations...and why not...until international mandatory law tries to
     >impose rules and regulations on others that are likely to be harmed by
     >them.
     >Could write much more, but perhaps you have time to read a bit about
     >global warming policy and politics.(Attached..) By the way, I amnot
     >that distinguished, but would be pleased if a sciecne journal did look
     >at my work. Onthe other hand, teh link is the other way round; in this
     >case the policy relevance of science is meat for me. On the other
     >hand, it woudl do science defined as research no harm to worry a bit
     >more about who funds them and why, and above all who simplifies their
     >findings for what purpose.
     >
     >By the way, no need to lecture me on peer review, have been in this game
     >long enough too, on both sides. There is a growing trend for peers to
     >belong to a mutual support group, and the reasons for that is the
     >emphasis now put, by funders, on peer review, as if this were the best
     >way to assess  'quality'..this again serves bureaucracies rather than
     >science, and works sometimes, but not always.
     >I do stand corrected however on your point about returning peer
     >reviewed papers to the author of a paper that has been criticised. I
     >have never come across this in the social sciences, I did not learn itg
     >from my shusbanmd who was a space physicist, and I myslef have never
     >had this experience. I (and A Kellow) have  been accused by
     >non-political scientists of conspiracy theory..a top WMO person did
     >this last, and apologised in private...People who have had different
     >experiences of the peer review process might like to contact you
     >directly.
     >Best wishes
     >Sonja
     > On Thu, 06 Nov
     >2003 12:38:57 -0500 "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@geo.umass.edu> wrote:
     >
     > > In a recent email to Mike Mann you ask:
     > > "journals like mine are surely permitted to ask and who is funding the
     > > 'global warming' modelling community ".
     > > It is public knowledge that almost all of the modeling research in the US
     > > is funded by a government firmly committed to NOT adopting the Kyoto
     > > protocols.  If your argument is that we are all somehow brainlessly
     > > following the dictates of our funding, would it not follow that we would
     > > all be publishing results that support this government
     > > position?   Apparently we are not.  Could it be that the entire research
     > > community is perversely seeking to have their funding terminated, or
     > > perhaps that 100% of the community are Democrats?  This seems inherently
     > > unlikely.....
     > > Scientists seek to publish what they discover, wherever the chips may fall,
     > > and other scientists (NOT selected by the authors) review their procedures
     > > and data, then recommend whether the research should see the light of
     > > day.  This is known as peer review.   If other scientists then find fault
     > > with the published research, they are free to write a critique which is
     > > always --ALWAYS-- sent to the original authors to assess and respond to
     > > BEFORE it is published.  You apparently do not follow such procedures,
     > > which clearly demonstrates that you are not interested in an open dialogue,
     > > but only concerned with pushing your own political agenda--the very
     > > criticism that you seem to level at climate scientists who worked on the
     > > IPCC research assessment.
     > > As for the McIntyre and McKintrick paper that you published as a
     > > "correction" to our work, following an "audit" of our data and procedures,
     > > you have done the research community a great disservice by giving voice to
     > > a flawed and erroneous study which neither correctly "audited" our work,
     > > nor "corrected" it. Furthermore, you did not give us the common courtesy of
     > > seeing the paper before it was rushed into print.  Had you done so, we
     > > would have pointed out the errors and misunderstandings that pervade their
     > > study.  Let me emphasise that I believe anybody has the right to carry out
     > > a climate reconstruction and submit their results for publication, but
     > > nobody has the right to claim they have undertaken an audit when they have
     > > manifestly not done so. I'd have thought that a company CEO like McIntyre
     > > would understand what the word audit meant even if you do not.
     > > Since you clearly "do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the
     > > 'scientific' truth of publications that the IPCC selects" I really think it
     > > would be best if you don't stray into that arena and stick to what you feel
     > > you can best evaluate.  I suspect you would not appreciate an evaluation of
     > > your work published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
     > > Sincerely
     > >
     > > Raymond S. Bradley
     > > University Distinguished Professor
     > > Director, Climate System Research Center*
     > > Department of Geosciences
     > > Morrill Science Center
     > > 611 North Pleasant Street
     > > AMHERST, MA 01003-9297
     > >
     > > Tel: 413-545-2120
     > > Fax: 413-545-1200
     > > *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659
     > >          <[1]http://www.paleoclimate.org>
     > > Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [2]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html
     > >
     > >
     > >
     >
     >----------------------
     >Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
     >Reader,Department of Geography,
     >Editor, Energy & Environment
     >(Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk)
     >Faculty of Science
     >University of Hull
     >Hull HU6 7RX, UK
     >Tel: (0)1482 465349/6341/5385
     >Fax: (0)1482 466340
     >Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk
     >
     >
     >
     >
     --- End Forwarded Message ---
     ----------------------
     Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
     Reader,Department of Geography,
     Editor, Energy & Environment
     (Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk)
     Faculty of Science
     University of Hull
     Hull HU6 7RX, UK
     Tel: (0)1482 465349/6341/5385
     Fax: (0)1482 466340
     Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk
     Dear Professor Bradley,
     I have been meaning to respond to your message to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, but many
     other duties have  conspired to deny me the time to do so. I think it is important that
     I do so, particularly because of the nature of the extraordinary attack on her for
     daring to publish the M&M paper in E&E.
     I should declare that I recently co-authored a book with Sonja, and recently accepted an
     invitation to join the Editorial Board of E&E, having previously published two papers
     with it. I speak, therefore, with some exerience of both Sonja and the journal. The
     journal can stand by its own reputation - by the quality of its multidisciplinary
     content (which is always likely to provoke occasional controversy), but I am disturbed
     by the attacks on Sonja, which have been personal and included derogatory comments.
     Sonja has an excellent track record of publication in science politics and policy,
     including both research monographs and articles in leading journals, including Nature,
     Energy Policy, Environmental Politics, and Global Environmental Change. She is perhaps
     unequalled in her understanding of the issues involved and is widely cited by those on
     all sides of the climate change issue. The attack on her character is regrettable, all
     the more so because it has been conducted under protection of anonymity, thanks largely
     to the manner in which Dr Mann first engaged the M&M paper.
     For reasons best known to him, Dr Mann responded to this paper first on David Appell's
     blog 'Quark Soup' - an unfortunate choice, I must say. (Dr Appell reported Dr Mann's
     initial response at 8.02 am on 29 October - two days before the first draft of your
     collective initial response was posted on the East Anglia site). I was not previously
     familiar with this blog - there is an awful lot of junk in cyberspace and it is hard to
     track it all.  Dr Appell professes to be a journalist, but his blog lies squarely in the
     realm of commentary, and provides a forum for anonymous gratuitous comment of the kind
     that no quality newspaper allows. It is a practice permitted by the tabloid press,
     perhaps fittingly, because that is the quality of journal which might reprint Sonja's
     e-mail to Dr Mann - deliberately circulated widely - and trumpet that it had obtained a
     copy of a 'leaked e-mail'.
     To further illustrate my point about quality, Dr Appell also slurs Theodor Landscheidt
     under the heading 'E&E publishes an astrologer!', when Landscheidt's book is quite
     cleary an evidenced-based critique of atsrology. He also describes the critique of SRES
     published by Ian Castles and David Henderson as 'a third specious paper published
     recently by Energy and Environment'. For the record, Castles is a former Government
     Statistician and Head of the Finance Department in the Australian Government, and (until
     recently) was Vice-President of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. David
     Henderson was formerly Head of the Economics Department at the OECD. Prior to drawing
     attention to problems with SRES, Castles did much the same with the misuse of statistics
     in the UNDP World Development Report, a matter which was referred to the UN Statistical
     Commission, which upheld his critique.
     Dr Appell seems to have his loyal retinue of readers, though I see that few other than a
     couple of characters called 'Uncle E' and 'Dano' bother to contribute their anonymous
     patter. All the more surprising, then, that Dr Mann would select a medium such as this
     as his outlet. (Indeed, he gave his permission for e-mails between himslef and M&M to be
     posted).
     Ironically, Dr Appell's website incorporates a quotation by Heinrich Heine about
     book-burning. The irony lies in the calls by Dr Appell and his acolytes for the
     non-publication of M&M and other pieces which do not accord with his position on the
     issue, and the celebration of the resignation of members of editorial boards from
     journals for publishing (or, most recently, intending to publish) work they disagreed
     with (or, most recently, by people they disagree with, since there is no suggestion that
     Professor Hulme has even seen the piece over which he is resigning). I suppose if we can
     suppress publication of books (and articles) we can save ourselves the trouble of
     burning them!
     It is entirely appropriate that Sonja should invite Mann et al to respond to the M&M
     paper, but I think you are wrong in expecting that you should have been given access to
     the paper before any decision was made to publish.
     Had the M&M paper simply been a comment on Mann et al, then it probably should have been
     written as a letter to Nature, and referred to Mann, yourself and Hughes for a
     rejoinder. But it was much more than that, and they have stated quite explicitly why
     they wished a longer piece to be considered for publication. As a paper in it's own
     right, the authors had every reason to have it subjected to review as a paper in any
     journal they chose. As such, it would have been wholly inappropriate for it to be sent
     to any of the Mann et al authors for review, as to do so would have placed you  in a
     conflict of interest: reviewing a paper which reflected critically on your work.
     Moreover, Dr Mann (as I understand it) quite explicitly cut off communication with M&M
     before the paper was completed and submitted. M&M cannot then be held responsible for
     your lack of involvement in the final version.
     As you rightly note, in peer review there should be an independence between the authors
     and the reviewers. This cuts both ways: there should be no positive or negative
     relationship between them. But peer review is not the only determinant of science,
     important as it is. The US Supreme Court (in Daubert v Merril Dow) has provided a good
     statement of what constitutes scientific evidence. Publication after anonymous peer
     review is an important part of that, but so too is the requirement that it should have
     withstood several attempts at verification or falsification.
     I guess many of us have had concerns over the treatment of Mann et al in IPCC TAR on
     these very grounds: Mann being a lead author, TAR being drafted before exactly the the
     kind of paper M&M have written could have appeared, the political use of the
     implications of the paper (especially given the combination of proxy and instrumental
     data, when science without political purpose would have been satisfied with merely the
     proxy reconstruction). The production of a consensus (especially by an Intergovernmental
     Panel) is an inherently political process, and that is where Sonja and I have our
     interest and expertise. But we both know that science is controversial, and attempts to
     create and enforce consensus are not typical of the usual way in which science is
     progressed.
     For the record, while we think TAR erred in allowing new storylines rather than new
     science (as Tom Wigley has pointed out) to drive a new upper limit to the temperature
     range which is improbable in the extreme, Sonja and I are on the record as stating we
     consider we are probably in for 1-3 deg C of warming and that something less than this
     is probably anthropogenic. We see much unresolved uncertainty in the science. We are
     critical of the Kyoto Protocol as a policy instrument and of the Kyoto process as a
     means of developng policy instruments - but that is our expertise.
     Regardless of the outcome of Mann et al vs M&M, it is quite clear that science will have
     been advanced as a result of the attempt of both teams to further our understanding of
     complex and important issues.
     I would suggest, however, that science is best advanced by conducting the terms of the
     debate on civil terms, and in media where participants are prepared to stand by their
     views and opinions. I get very worried when I see ad hominem attacks, along with
     commission of the genetic fallacy, use of argumentum ad populum., etc. My first reaction
     is to think that those using them do so in desperation in the absence of an argument. So
     please let's conduct the debate according to accepted rules, and submit your reponse to
     E&E. If it holds water, it stands the test of time - that's the deal with science. If
     M&M are wrong, show how and why.
     Incidentally, I agree with Sonja on your depiction of the politics of science. You would
     fail introductory political science with such a caricatured account of the manner in
     which politics might influence science. There are staw men everywhere! If you want a
     better appreciation removed from the cut and thrust of climate science, try Robert
     Proctor's The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton UP). Study question: why was German science
     and policy on tobacco at least 20 years ahead of Sir Richard Doll in the UK and the US
     Surgeon-General?
     Best,
     Aynsley Kellow

     From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk>
     Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:43:32 +0000
     To: "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>
     Subject: Re: clarification
     Cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>, L.A.Love@hull.ac.uk,
        "David R. Legates" <legates@udel.edu>, Aynsley Kellow <akellow@utas.edu.au>,
        Eigil Friis-Christensen <efc@dsri.dk>
     Priority: NORMAL
     Status: RO
     Dear Raymond, or should I say Dear Distinguished Professor Bradley?
     You clearly are not a political scientist, not that this matters, but
     ignorance tends to lead to simplification by all of us, and I do
     include myself as far as your work is concerned. Where I disagree with
     you is summarised below. I hope you forgive the wider participating
     audience, for you are making a few points about peer review and
     publication issues were a wider debate is essential for me and my
     position as editor.
     >From my perspective your argument about US policy is wrong: there is no
     such thing as 'a ' government and the politics I talk about is rarely
     confined to political parties, except for very few decisions. Ratifying
     a treaty is one of them.
     I know enough about the USA to be sure that many of its parts (DOE, EA,
     sections of the State Department and by now all departments with
     significant research budgets) are in favour of Kyoto..and hence see
     global warming as a serious threat,  a threat that 'enables' them
     without asking for much now. Bureaucracies like such issues. Met one of
     your chaps only yesterday, at Chatham House, Royal Institute for
     International Affairs, a Richard Bradley for US DOE International
     Affairs who poked a lot of fun at Bush and friends...and made it quite
     clear where he stood, and that was with Kyoto. The resistance in US
     (and Australia and Russia) does not come primarily from  the middle and
     lower  sections of the administrative machinery, but from top
     politicians and the  Senate, that is from people accountable to
     electors. Support for Kyoto  does come from the ENRONs and all those
     who want subsidies in one form of another, less from those that have to
     raise the money for decarbonisation and emission buying.
     (I am in favour of subsidies and hence taxes if they solve real
     problems, but not when they go to fund visions and model predictions.)
     I know quite a lot about how governments work; one friend negotiated
     UNFCC for one country I am familiar with. In another country I know
     well, I know top scientists who will say one thing in public and
     another in private....but gots loads of money to study carbon, and
     doing useful science.  Even the geologists are now persuaded that
     carbon is a threat, look at the sequestration issue in geological
     formations...and why not...until international mandatory law tries to
     impose rules and regulations on others that are likely to be harmed by
     them.
     Could write much more, but perhaps you have time to read a bit about
     global warming policy and politics.(Attached..) By the way, I amnot
     that distinguished, but would be pleased if a sciecne journal did look
     at my work. Onthe other hand, teh link is the other way round; in this
     case the policy relevance of science is meat for me. On the other
     hand, it woudl do science defined as research no harm to worry a bit
     more about who funds them and why, and above all who simplifies their
     findings for what purpose.
     By the way, no need to lecture me on peer review, have been in this game
     long enough too, on both sides. There is a growing trend for peers to
     belong to a mutual support group, and the reasons for that is the
     emphasis now put, by funders, on peer review, as if this were the best
     way to assess  'quality'..this again serves bureaucracies rather than
     science, and works sometimes, but not always.
     I do stand corrected however on your point about returning peer
     reviewed papers to the author of a paper that has been criticised. I
     have never come across this in the social sciences, I did not learn itg
     from my shusbanmd who was a space physicist, and I myslef have never
     had this experience. I (and A Kellow) have  been accused by
     non-political scientists of conspiracy theory..a top WMO person did
     this last, and apologised in private...People who have had different
     experiences of the peer review process might like to contact you
     directly.
     Best wishes
     Sonja
     On Thu, 06 Nov
     2003 12:38:57 -0500 "Raymond S. Bradley" <rbradley@geo.umass.edu> wrote:
     > In a recent email to Mike Mann you ask:
     > "journals like mine are surely permitted to ask and who is funding the
     > 'global warming' modelling community ".
     > It is public knowledge that almost all of the modeling research in the US
     > is funded by a government firmly committed to NOT adopting the Kyoto
     > protocols.  If your argument is that we are all somehow brainlessly
     > following the dictates of our funding, would it not follow that we would
     > all be publishing results that support this government
     > position?   Apparently we are not.  Could it be that the entire research
     > community is perversely seeking to have their funding terminated, or
     > perhaps that 100% of the community are Democrats?  This seems inherently
     > unlikely.....
     > Scientists seek to publish what they discover, wherever the chips may fall,
     > and other scientists (NOT selected by the authors) review their procedures
     > and data, then recommend whether the research should see the light of
     > day.  This is known as peer review.   If other scientists then find fault
     > with the published research, they are free to write a critique which is
     > always --ALWAYS-- sent to the original authors to assess and respond to
     > BEFORE it is published.  You apparently do not follow such procedures,
     > which clearly demonstrates that you are not interested in an open dialogue,
     > but only concerned with pushing your own political agenda--the very
     > criticism that you seem to level at climate scientists who worked on the
     > IPCC research assessment.
     > As for the McIntyre and McKintrick paper that you published as a
     > "correction" to our work, following an "audit" of our data and procedures,
     > you have done the research community a great disservice by giving voice to
     > a flawed and erroneous study which neither correctly "audited" our work,
     > nor "corrected" it. Furthermore, you did not give us the common courtesy of
     > seeing the paper before it was rushed into print.  Had you done so, we
     > would have pointed out the errors and misunderstandings that pervade their
     > study.  Let me emphasise that I believe anybody has the right to carry out
     > a climate reconstruction and submit their results for publication, but
     > nobody has the right to claim they have undertaken an audit when they have
     > manifestly not done so. I'd have thought that a company CEO like McIntyre
     > would understand what the word audit meant even if you do not.
     > Since you clearly "do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the
     > 'scientific' truth of publications that the IPCC selects" I really think it
     > would be best if you don't stray into that arena and stick to what you feel
     > you can best evaluate.  I suspect you would not appreciate an evaluation of
     > your work published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
     > Sincerely
     >
     > Raymond S. Bradley
     > University Distinguished Professor
     > Director, Climate System Research Center*
     > Department of Geosciences
     > Morrill Science Center
     > 611 North Pleasant Street
     > AMHERST, MA 01003-9297
     >
     > Tel: 413-545-2120
     > Fax: 413-545-1200
     > *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659
     >          <<[3]http://www.paleoclimate.org>[4]http://www.paleoclimate.org>
     > Paleoclimatology Book Web Site:
     <[5]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html>[6]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/pale
     o/html
     >
     >
     >
     ----------------------
     Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
     Reader,Department of Geography,
     Editor, Energy & Environment
     (Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk)
     Faculty of Science
     University of Hull
     Hull HU6 7RX, UK
     Tel: (0)1482 465349/6341/5385
     Fax: (0)1482 466340
     Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk

     <br>
     <div>Professor Aynsley Kellow</div>
     <div>Head, School of Government</div>
     <div>University of Tasmania</div>
     <div>Private Bag 22</div>
     <div>Hobart 7001</div>
     <div>Phone: 61+3+ 6226 7895</div>
     Fax: 61+3+ 6226 2895
     </blockquote></x-html>

     Dr Timothy J Osborn
     Climatic Research Unit
     School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
     Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK
     e-mail:   t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
     phone:    +44 1603 592089
     fax:      +44 1603 507784
     web:      [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
     sunclock: [8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

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

