cc: mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Scott Rutherford <srutherford@rwu.edu>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:16:42 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
subject: Fwd: Re: [Fwd: VL: McIntyre-McKitrick Reply to Mann - Part 1]
to: Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>

   Dear All,
   Needless to say, the information I provided below is very sensitive. Please keep this
   completely confidential. We do not want to in any way do something that might influence
   these pieces seeing the light of day. So please do not pass along to anyone!!
   Thanks,
   mike

     Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:43:57 -0500
     To: Tom Wigley <wigley@cgd.ucar.edu>
     From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
     Subject: Re: [Fwd: VL: McIntyre-McKitrick Reply to Mann - Part 1]
     Cc: mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, Scott Rutherford
     <srutherford@rwu.edu>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa
     <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
     Bcc: Annie_Petsonk@environmentaldefense.org, Michael Oppenheimer
     <omichael@Princeton.EDU>
     Hi Tom,
     There is a myth being perpetuated by these people, and your falling into the trap of
     letting them set the rules. We cannot allow that. The data has all been available back
     through july 2002 here on our public ftp site:
     [1]ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/
     All of the data used by MBH98 have been there, plain and simple.
     USA Today is going to be publishing a retraction tomorrow or Friday of the claim made
     last week in their op-ed pages (by an industry shill) that we hadn't made our data
     publicly available. That should clear this all up in a hurry!
     Meanwhile, we're going ahead w/ a peer-reviewed submission expanding on our initial
     response, and we believe that should settle the issue. I don't see any problem if others
     want to download the data (which have been there all along) and try the analyses
     themselves, but I can't allow myself to be distracted with all of that right now. It
     would set me back years in my own research plans, which is part of the motive of this
     effort...
     mike
     At 11:01 AM 11/12/2003 -0700, Tom Wigley wrote:

     Mike,
     I presume you have seen this. One of their buzz phrases is 'the basic standards of data
     disclosure'. Personally, I see no reason why one should disclose all data and all
     methodological details -- unless required to by the funding authority. I had a long
     exchange with Timo on this issue, which I will forward to you.
     These guys are primarily accusing you of either making errors or being incompetent.
     (I have not seen this directly, but they may also be implying that you deliberately
     distorted your analysis -- but it is best not to get into this possibility.)
     There are three possible responses. The first is to prove to *them* that your results
     are correct. The second is to tell them to go to hell. The third is to use an
     independent
     arbiter (a statistician) to repeat your analysis.
     The first is difficult. You could give them all the data in an easily used form and tell
     them
     exactly what you did -- and then see if they can repeat it and get your results. This is
     tricky because I doubt that one can trust them to do this honestly -- indeed, one could
     say  to them (and the world) that you  neither trusted their motives nor their
     competance,
     as a lead in to option three. Competance can be challenged since they have no track
     record in the field, nor are they qualified as bona fide statisticians.
     The second rests on whether you are bound by disclosure conditions. Using this option
     could be justified, but it sure would piss them off. A possible holding action would be
     to
     say that a full paper describing the methods used was in preparation, and they just have
     to wait. (In other words, go to hell for now, and I'll tell you when to come back out.)
     The third option seems the best. The three statisticians who could help are Richard
     Smith, Francis Zwiers and Dan Wilks.
     The approach I would use here is to say that, since both sides are either directly or
     indirectly accusing the other of at least some level of incompetance, and since you
     (MBH)
     see no reason why your data should be made available at this stage (i.e., you can agree
     with 'full disclosure' in principle, but only in a 'timely manner' where the data
     producer
     is the one who decides on the time frame), the only way to reconcile the differences
     between
     you and the two Ms is through independent 'arbitration'. Since, once the data are given,
     this
     is purely a statistical issue, then the arbiter must be a bona fide, highly-respected
     statistician and one with some experience in climate science -- OF YOUR CHOICE.
     One of the problems is that options one and three may create dangerous precedents
     under the data quality act.  Actually, the way I have set up option three creates a
     possibly
     good precedent, especially with you choosing the arbiter. M&M may not agree with this,
     but you could add that your choice has to be agreed to by the appropriate panel of the
     NAS (who would definitely support the above three names).
     Wotcha think? (Share with others if you wish.)
     Tom.
     +++++++++++++++++++++
     -------- Original Message --------
     Subject: VL: McIntyre-McKitrick Reply to Mann - Part 1
     Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:34:48 +0200
     From: Timo Hmeranta [2]<timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi>
     To: Tom M. L. Wigley [3]<wigley@ucar.edu>
Dear Tom,

FYI attached.

All the best

Timo

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Timo Hmeranta, M.LL.
Moderator, Climatesceptics
Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
01620 Vantaa
Finland, Member State of the European Union

Moderator: [4]timohame@yahoo.co.uk
Private: [5]timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi

Home page: [6]http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm

Moderator of the discussion group  "Sceptical Climate Science"
[7]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics

"To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
shows only a lack of imagination".  (Kari Enqvist)

"If the facts change, I'll change my opinion.
What do you do, Sir" (John Maynard Keynes)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




     ______________________________________________________________
                         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
              [8]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
            [9]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

