cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, anrevk@nytimes.com, hpollack@umich.edu, gabi.hegerl@ed.ac.uk, santer1@llnl.gov
date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:07:11 -0600 (MDT)
from: quotable@telus.net
subject: Re: RE: From the Wall Street Journal:
to: Anne.Jolis@dowjones.com

   and criticism and none Dear Anne,


   There are great stories to be had on the unprofessional, hpahazard or amateurish
   manipulation of data on climate science, but none actually feature Michael Mann. I would
   bid you to look here
   (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php), for example,
   for some background on Steve McIntyre's own machinations in the way he has pursued his
   criticisms of Mann's hockey stick.


   For a greater sense as to the robust nature of the hockey stick analyses, you could also
   look to a host of other reconstructions(you'll find a collection here:
   http://www.desmogblog.com/this-is-not-a-hockey-stick), all drawn from different sources,
   all by different people, all equally available to McIntyre for analysis and none of which
   that have been contradicted in any way. You will notice as you look at them that they ALL
   show temperature, graphed over the past many centurie, forms into the shape of a hockey
   stick. So, even if Mann's data was corrupt (and McIntyre's arguments to that effect are
   not, ultimately convincing), his conclusion has been confirmed and reconfirmed many times
   over and by many different people. That, ultimately is one of the true tests of solid
   science: can results be confirmed by different people using different methods in different
   places.


   In a case where the answer to that question is categorically: yes!, you have to wonder at
   the motivations - and the professionalism - of people who continue to obsess about the
   finest detail of what they presume to be the weakest link. I would further wonder why the
   Wall street Journal, one of the most powerful and, in many communities, reputable
   newspapers in the world, would also choose to invest its energies in the single tiny
   controversy - this side show - rather than stepping back and getting a rather less blinding
   look at the big picture.


   To take this a step further, I have to acknowledge being co-author of a new book, Climate
   Cover-up, which addresses the hockey stick  and many other manufactured elements of debate
   in the imagined climate science controversy. The book documents evidence to the effect that
   this entire argument is the work of a well organized, well-funded public relations campaign
   of confusion. The American people are less convinced today of the realities of climate
   change than they were two years ago. This is NOT a reflection of scientific reality - or
   anything that one might call evidence. It is proof that when the energy industry invests $1
   billion-plus in a well-documented effort to get people to question science that they may
   well enjoy some success, especially if mainstream reporters get caught up in the details
   and ignore the big picture.


   I urge you first to check the links I have provided. Then, I commend the book. I also would
   be happy to make myself available or to arrange an interview with lead author Jim Hoggan.
   Your readers deserve a careful look at this issue. The very fate of the world may hang in
   the balance. Leaving that fate in the hands of an amateur staistician - favoured over the
   science academies of every major nation on earth - would seem a specific deservice.


   Cheers,


   r


   Richard Littlemore


   www.desmogblog.com


   On Oct 23, 2009, Jolis, Anne <Anne.Jolis@dowjones.com> wrote:

   Dear All,

   

   I see that Dr. Mann has CCd you on his reply to me, which is fine. Below you see my
   original email and questions to him - I'm likely to file this weekend, but invite any of
   you to weigh in with your own thoughts and responses on the issues on which I've queried
   Dr. Mann.

   

   All the best,

   Anne Jolis

   

   On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Jolis, Anne wrote:

   Dear Dr. Mann,
   
   My name is Anne Jolis, and I'm with the Wall Street Journal Europe, based in London. I'm
   working on a piece about climate change, and specifically the growing questions that people
   outside the field have about the methods and processes used by climatologists and other
   climate-change scientists - and, necessarily, about the conclusions that result. The idea
   came from the recent controversy  that has arisen once again over Steve McIntyre, the
   publication of  the full Yamal data used in Keith Briffa's work. This of course raises
   questions among climate scientistis, and observers, about whether the so-called "hockey
   stick" graph of global temperatures, as produced by Dr. Briffa and originally by
   yourself,  was drawn from narrow data which,  and then  - when broadened to include
   a wider range of available dendroclimatological data  -  seems to show no important
   spike in global temperatures in the last 100 years. I realize this is not exactly the
   silver-bullet to anthropogenic global warming that some would like to read into it, but
   it seems to me that it  does underscore some of the issues in climate science.
   Specifically, the publication of the data, and the earlier controversy over your work,
   seems to illustrate that best practices and reliable methods of data collection remain far
   from established, and that much of what is presented as scientific fact is really more of a
   value judgment based on select data.  Would you agree?
   
   
   I'd love to get some insight from you for my article. I'll be filing this weekend, but I
   can call you any time it's convenient for you on Friday - just let me know the best time
   and number. Please note that if we do speak on the phone, I will email you with any quotes
   or paraphrases that I would like to attribute to you, before publication, so as to secure
   your approval and confirm the accuracy of what I'm attributing to you. Additionally, if
   you'd like to correspond via email, that's fine too. I've listed below some of the
   questions and assumptions I'm working on - if, in lieu of a phone call, you'd like to
   answer and/or respond to these, as well as share any other thoughts you have on these
   issues, I'd be most grateful. Feel welcome to reply at length!
   
   I thank you in advance for your time and attention, and look forward to any of your
   comments.
   
   All the best,
   Anne Jolis
   
   - Given that methods  in climate science are still being refined, do you agree with
   policy makers' and advocates' use of data such as your own? Do you feel it is accurately
   represented to laymans, and that the inherent uncertainties present in the data are
   appropriately underscored? As a citizen, do you feel there is enough certainty in the
   conclusions of, for instance, the latest IPCC report, to introduce new economic
   regulations? Why or why not?
   
   -What methods do you feel are the most accurate for predicting future climate
   change,  for evaluatinag the causes of climate change and  for predicting whether or
   what man can do to try to control  or mitigate climate change in the future in the
   future? Why do you feel these methods are the most accurate? Do you feel they're given
   enough weight in the current debate?
   
   -What is your opinion of the value of Steve McIntyre's work? Clearly he is not a
   professional scientist, but do you feel there is nonetheless a place for his "auditing" in
   the climate science community? Why or why not?
   
   -Do you think McIntyre's work and findings are likely to change the way leading climate
   scientists operate? Do you think his recent campaign to get Dr. Keith Briffa to publish
   the Yamal data he used is likely to make climate scientists more forthcoming with their
   data? Do you think his work will make scientists, policymakers and advocates any more
   exacting about the uncertainties in their procedures, methods and conclusions when they
   present scientific data? 
   
   -How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review processes of
   publications in the field of climate science, as something of a "gatekeeper," you have
   rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work. Is this fair?
   Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work that is worthy
   of publication?
   
   -Do you stand by your original "hockey stick" graf, even after the publication of borehole
   data from Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon that seems to contradict your conclusions? Or
   work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the predictive
   capabilities of the method you used in your original "hockey stick" would not be able to
   predict current temperatures?
   
   
