cc: mann@virginia.edu
date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:50:06 +0000
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd: 
to: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>, Ray Bradley <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@comcast.net>, Steve Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>,tom crowley <tom@ocean.tamu.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.UCAR.EDU>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>,asocci@cox.net, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>,Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Tim_Profeta@lieberman.senate.gov,Ben Santer <santer1@llnl.gov>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerl@duke.edu>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4@osu.edu>, "Lonnie G. Thompson" <thompson.3@osu.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@cgd.ucar.edu>

    Mike,
       Steve McIntyre is the person who asked me for the series he couldn't get from the M+J
    article. Told him I couldn't send them - back in August. He's sent emails to the Finn
   (Timo)
    saying some of the series weren't available, blaming us for using data that aren't readily
    available.
       Some years ago I sent him loads of temperature stations and discussed homogeneity
   issues,
    but never heard anything else.
       From my recollection of the emails I suspect the article isn't likely to be up to much.
    Cheers
    Phil
   At 08:35 27/10/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

     Thanks Phil,
     Got your email just as I sent off my latest.
     I agree fully with what you say--it is very difficult to repeat such an analysis
     exactly, and the real point here is, who knows what this guy (Steven McIntyre--I don't
     know who the supposed 2nd author is) actually did. The Mann et al '99 paper was clear
     that the results were sensitive to a small number of skillful predictors prior to AD
     1400, and that non-climate biases had to be corrected for in some of the longer series
     to get a skillfully cross-validated reconstruction. Without knowing what the guy did,
     I'm guessing that  he doesn't even demonstrate that his alternative "reconstruction"
     passes cross-validation. If not, its all moot...
     But more fundamentally, this wasn't submitted to a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific
     journal. Its a social science journal, and one that has shown a disdain for peer review
     (e.g. in publishing the Soon et al Climate Research paper essentially in its original
     unedited form--and see the recent documented comments of the editor).
     I agree this might blow over, but the folks in DC, such as McCain and Lieberman,  who
     are fighting to represent what the legitimate scientific community has to say, need to
     be prepared in case the special interests try to use this. Hence, the short response I
     sent out.
     cheers,
     mike
     At 01:23 PM 10/27/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

      Mike,
         Depending exactly on what it says I suggest we should do our best to ignore it. E&E
     is
      edited ( a very loose use of the word) by Sonia Boehmer-Christiansen, who's generally
      involved, in some way, in all skeptic stuff here in Britain.
         It is rather odd that the email said the two had rerun his (Mann's) exact analysis
     and got
      quite different results. I know I couldn't do this, as when Keith, Tim and me wanted to
     do
      some comparisons with MBH98 a few years ago a few of the series could not be made
      available. I'm not trying to make any sort of point here, just to state that repeating
     an
      analysis with exactly the same data is normally very difficult. Missing values is an
     odd
      phrase also, as all the series used are complete from first to last year.  If it isn't
     MBH98/99
      then for M+J03 in GRL, there at least three series that are not available for use,
     without
      contacting the authors of the original papers.
        So let's wait to see what it says. Suggested response would seem follow response 2.
      Cheers
      Phil
     At 13:47 26/10/2003 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

     Dear All,
     This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
     Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data  made. Its clear that
     "Energy and Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill  for industry would
     have republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to "Climate Research"
     without even editing it. Now apparently they're at it again...
     My suggested response is:
     1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already known
     to have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody
     we know has been asked to "review" this so-called paper
     2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result  has been obtained by
     numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques,
     etc.
     Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the
     usual suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that
     this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to
     dismiss this for the stunt that it is..
     Thanks for your help,
     mike

      two people have a forthcoming 'Energy & Environment' paper that's being unveiled tomoro
     (monday) that -- in the words of one Cato / Marshall/ CEI type -- "will claim that Mann
     arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for
     missing values that dramatically affected his results.
             When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
     substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th
     century.
             Personally, I'd offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann's
     methodology:  it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.
     Anyway, there's going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann's very thin
     skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
     the past...."

     ______________________________________________________________
                         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
              [1]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
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


     ______________________________________________________________
                         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
              [2]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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

