cc: mann@virginia.edu
date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:37:17 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
subject: Re: Fwd: Mann, Bradley and Hughes
to: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@Princeton.EDU>, 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>, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu

   Dear Tim,
   Thanks for the message These guys, as Tom W has  noted previously, seem to simply to simply
   want to try to make as big a stink as possible here. They didn't get the media attention
   they wanted (and got blasted in the one mainstream news article on this that appeared in
   USA Today a couple weeks back), and they haven't been taken seriously by the scientific
   community so I guess they're trying to generate any controversies they can. I would
   STRONGLY encourage you not to bother responding to any of their emails under any
   circumstancdes. History has proven consistently (talk to Phil!) that they'll simply try to
   take anything you say out of context, and turn your own words on you. This is what they did
   w/ the attempts on our part to help then in response to their initial inquiries, which they
   twist and distort in their comments below (we I only  told them I wouldn't respond to
   further inquiries after the tone of their emails had become unacceptable, and their hostile
   intent clear--something this guy, as just about everything else, conveniently distorts...
   They've been making threats against NSF about supposed data policies and even against Ray,
   Tom Crowley, and others too, claiming that they have a right to all of our data and
   computer programs (the hubris!). Confidentially, NSF lawyers have found their threats
   baseless as well as obnoxious, and will be telling them formally that NSF policy in no way
   legally requires funded scientists to provided their data (let alone computer codes!) for
   public access, but scientists are *encouraged* to provide their data. NSF will be telling
   them to stop pestering them. I'm forwarding a formal email (based on numerous informal
   discussion w/ Dave Verardo) to NSF, which is confidential (!), that provides some more
   information....
   As we all know, we had made all of our data available previously, so the accusations by
   these bozos are baselss, though we agree that we would have given more care to the
   completeness of documentation  had we known a stunt like this was to be pulled by the
   contrarians..
   Confidentially, we will be releasing a revised, more user-friendly version of the dataste
   (all of the data, including the CRU temperature dataset we used, which isn't available any
   longer) in concert w/ our published reply tto their paper, submitted to "Climatic
   Change"---will keep you posted on status to their paper. We can make a copy of the
   manuscript available to anyone who wants to see it, but we don't want to corrupt the
   potential  reviewer pool prior to selection of reviewers, so we've resisted sending this
   out to colleagues yet. The data will also be available on Nature's supplementary
   information website (we're working w/ Nature on this right now).
   mike
   At 02:34 PM 12/8/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:

     Dear all,
     see the forwarded message.  McIntyre is attempting to rope CRU into the ongoing fall-out
     from their paper in E&E, apparently because we "published" MBH's preliminary response by
     posting it on our website.
     Anyone got any comments, before I reply to say that I don't consider appearance on a web
     page as publication, and hence we aren't in a position to ask MBH for any data or
     programs.
     Cheers
     Tim

     From:   "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca>
     To:     "Tim Osborn" <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
     Cc:     "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk>, "Ross McKitrick" <rmckitri@uoguelph.ca>
     Subject: Mann, Bradley and Hughes
     Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:57:06 -0500
     X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
     Dear Dr. Osborn,
     We regret that you declined our offer to submit our forthcoming paper to CRU/UEA for
     review, especially since you had been critical about Energy & Environment review
     policies. Our offer reflected our desire for the highest possible standard of public
     debate on these matters.
     UEA/CRU recently published an article by Mann, Bradley and Hughes ("MBH-r") responding
     to our paper in Energy & Environment, together with your own editorial comments. We are
     seeking the following supplementary information in connection with this article and
     commentary:
     1)      an identification of the 159 series, referred to in MBH-r;
     2)      a copy of the computer programs used to collate input data and generate the
     output data plotted in the Figure in MBH-r;
     3)      verification that these programs are the same as the corresponding programs used
     in MBH98 and, if not, a copy of the programs used to collate input data and generate
     output data for MBH98.
     We have requested this information from Professor Mann, but he has refused and has cut
     off further communication. In your capacity as publishers of his response article, we
     accordingly request the information from you directly.
     We have some other concerns with your own commentary on our article in Energy &
     Environment. We do not claim to show that 15th century temperatures were higher than
     20th century temperatures. We only claim that application of MBH methods to corrected
     and updated data do not entitle MBH to claim 20th century uniqueness. We do not endorse
     the MBH98 methods and consequently did not put forward a reconstruction of our own.
     You also stated that we did not attempt to investigate the differences of results with
     MBH. This is untrue and indeed unfair. The email record shows clearly that we sought
     clarifications from Mann, first on our inability to replicate his temperature principal
     components calculations and secondly on both verification of the integrity of the
     dataset sent to us and on further particulars of his reconstruction methodology, noting
     problems in the early period. Mann refused to answer and stated that he would not
     respond to further inquiries on the subject. It is unfair of you to blame us for the
     fact that the correspondence ended there without satisfactory resolution.
     Full disclosure of the data and methods used in MBH-r (and MBH98), as requested above,
     will allow all interested observers to quickly get to the core points of disagreement in
     our analyses.
     Thank you for your consideration.
     Stephen McIntyre/Ross McKitrick

     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:      [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
     sunclock: [2]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
            [3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

