date: Tue Jul  5 14:00:11 2005
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: NEED HELP!
to: "Neville Nicholls" <N.Nicholls@bom.gov.au>

    Neville,
       Mike's draft reply - needs some work.  Again
    keep top yourself. Nothing though that you wouldn't
    expect.
       The responses
    that Tim Osborn kept about E&E might be useful for your
    talk in Perth. They illustrate nicely that there is
    peer review and peer review !
    Cheers
    Phil

     X-Sender: mem6u@holocene.evsc.virginia.edu
     X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.1.1
     Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:01:44 -0400
     To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
     From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
     Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: NEED HELP!
     Cc: santer1@llnl.gov, wigley@ucar.edu,
             Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>,
             Bradley Raymond <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>,
             Hughes Malcolm <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>
     X-Spam-Score: 1.7
     X-Spam-Level: +
     X-Spam-Flag: NO
     Dear Tim,
     Here is a draft of my response to the congressional inquiry. Please let me know if you
     have any comments (in particular, if the way I have cited your submitted paper is ok??).
     thanks again for your help,
     mike
     At 08:35 AM 6/27/2005, Tim Osborn wrote:

     At 17:00 25/06/2005, Michael E. Mann wrote:

     Tim/Keith/Phil,
     Please see attached letter from the U.S. House republicans. As Tom has mentioned below,
     it would be very helpful if I can get feedback from you all as I proceed w/ drafting a
     formal response.
     Thanks in advance for any help,
     mike

     Dear Mike, Malcolm and Ray
     I was shocked to see how blatantly this committee has been subverted by the
     anti-greenhouse lobby.
     It is an outrageous request in many ways, not least in the amount of effort that it will
     take to gather together all the information and respond; e.g. point 4 -- provide all
     data, and (it seems) computer code, documentation, etc., related to any paper that you
     authored or co-authored!  It would take me months to organize and document the
     100s-1000s programs and 10s-100s of GB of data which have been used in papers with my
     name on!  Even if the committee's review doesn't come to a conclusion that the
     anti-greenhouse lobby likes, they will still consider it a victory if they tie up your
     time for a number of months.
     Is there any way of reducing the efforts involved -- perhaps by requesting the committee
     to say which papers they wish to focus on?
     I haven't spoken to Keith or Phil yet, but I'm sure we will help where we can.  Here are
     two specific things:
     (1)
     Tom mentioned a paper that we've submitted that has relevance to von Storch et al.
     (2004).  It's still under review so I don't want it distributed far, but in case a copy
     hasn't found its way to you yet, the submitted manuscript is attached.
     The focus is not, in fact, on the von Storch et al. study, but is instead on the ECHO-G
     simulation that they used.  We use MAGICC to show that the atypical ECHO-G behaviour can
     be mainly attributed to relatively large disequilibrium in the initial conditions and to
     the omission of any anthropogenic tropospheric sulphate cooling towards the end of the
     run.
     Our final conclusion on page 15 might be useful for you: we do not discount the bias in
     climate reconstructions suggested by von Storch, but we do show that the size of the
     bias would likely have been much smaller if ECHO-G didn't have the unrealistic behaviour
     that we identified.
     To emphasize again: we don't invalide von Storch's results, we just cast doubt on the
     magnitude of the bias.
     (2)
     Tom also suggests that you raise questions regarding the reviewing of papers that attack
     your work.  This is a good idea.  I can help with some insight into the "review process"
     (in the loosest sense!) that was used for M&M's first paper in Energy & Environment.
     I've attached an edited response from that "journal's" editor, Sonja
     Boehmer-Christiansen, to some questions I raised.
     The editor clearly indicates that there was very little peer-review.  Publication was
     speeded up for purely political reasons, with scientific review losing in the trade off
     with policy.  The limited review that apparently took place used reviewers who were
     selected because they were not "part of the anti-skeptics bandwagon" rather than for
     having the necessary expertise.  From which I read that she only selected skeptics.
     I haven't forwarded this before, though I have alluded to these admissions from the
     editor to some of you, because the editor implied that she was responding in
     confidence.  But in light of the challenge that you are now facing, I thought it would
     be fair to give you this information.
     Best wishes
     Tim

     From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk>
     Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 21:52:12 +0000
     To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
     Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
     Dear Tim
     Thanks for your considered reponse from Norwich....
     I respond in CAPITALS IN TEXT.
     Please consider this for UEA eyes only; I am very honest...
     Sonja
     On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:44:23 Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk> wrote:
     > Dear Sonja,
     >
     > Below are some responses to your message that was forwarded from the
     > climatsceptics mailing list...
     >
     > The interesting thing about their preliminary response, however, is that it
     > indicates that the difference in results might be fully explained by a
     > simple error in not using many of the early tree-ring data.  If this is
     > confirmed by their fuller response, then, even though there may be some
     > problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al., it implies that these
     > problems do not actually make a lot of difference to the results - the main
     > difference comes from omitting the early tree-ring data.  A paper that
     > identifies some problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al. would
     > still be interesting, but if these problems made very little difference to
     > the results obtained, then it would be of rather minor importance.
     ...
     I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MCINTYRE AND MCKINTRICK HAVE MORE CRITICISMS
     TO MAKE  (HENCE THE EMAIL TO STEVE).
     (STEVE,  NEXT TIME, IF THERE IS ONE, WE MIGHT LET MANN HAVE LOOK IN
     ADVANCE, BUT NO PROMISE...THIS TIME I WAS RUSHING YOU TO GET THIS PAPER
     OUT FOR POLICY IMPACT REASONS, EG. PUBLICATION WELL BEFORE COP9.
     TIM, HOW ELSE DO YOU THINK A SMALL JOURNAL RUN BY TWO PEOPLE VERY PART
     TIME CAN ATTRACT PAPERS OF BROADER INTEREST IF NOT BY DOING THINGS
     QUICKLY?...
     THE M&M PAPER WAS AMENDED UNTIL THE VERY LAST MOMENT. THERE WAS A TRADE
     OFF IN FAVOUR OF POLICY, AND THIS IS A DECISION I STAND BY. SCIENCE
     DEBATES SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN PUBLIC IF THEY HAVE MAJOR POLICY RELEVANCE.
     >
     > I will finish by asking a few questions about Energy and Environment and
     > the peer-reviewing of this paper, which I hope you will be able and willing
     > to answer.
     >
     > (1) Mann et al. assert that they were not given the opportunity to review
     > the McIntyre and McKitrick paper.  It would be nice if you could confirm
     > that assertion, to ensure that we don't propagate any inaccuracies.  You
     > might also want to comment on whether this is reasonable or not, for a
     > paper that is a direct response to their original paper.
     >
     TRUE, BUT I HAD NO IDEA THAT HE, OR SCIENTIFIC ETHICS, EXPECTED THIS...
     IN THIS CASE IT WAS ALSO ONE OF SPEED  THINK HOW LONG IT WOULD
     TAKE TO ALLOW RESPONSES, AND COUNTER RESPONSES..   IN MY VIEW IT IS
     STILL BETTER IF THIS TAKES PLACE IN PUBLIC SO THAT ALL CAN SEE THE
     ARGUMENTS USED IN HIGHLY CONTESTED AREAS.
     > (2) The McIntyre and McKitrick paper does not seem to have submission,
     > acceptance or publication dates on it.  Does E&E not normally do this?  If
     > you do, then I'd be interested to know what these dates are.
     NO WE DONT, WE ARE A TINY OUTFIT, LARGELY UNPAID, NO GLOSSY JOURNAL, AND
     WE HAVE NEVER WORKED TO SUCH DATES. THIS PAPER WAS AMENED UNTIL THE VERY
     LAST MINUTE AND I WATCHED IT BEING WRITTEN OVER SEVERAL MONTHS WITH A
     LOT OF HELP, AS ACKNOWLDEGED. I THEN SEND IT OUT TO ANOTHER  5 PEOPLE
     WHO ONLY had a few days to respond TO THE AUTHORS DIRECT, BUT ALL DID
     EXCEPT ONE WHO NEVER GOT IT...) . SOME WERE VERY SENIOR SCIENTISTS
     INDEED BUT WHO WERE CHOSEN BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE
     ANTI- SKEPTICS BANDWAGON.
      AT THIS  STAGE I WANTED IMPROVEMENTS NOT FUNDAMENTAL CRITIQUE
     ...THE REAL DEBATE SHOULD COME AFTER PUBLICATION.
     THESE REPLIES  CONTAINED NO  RESERVATIONS RE PUBLICATION, ONLY
     ADMISSIONS THAT SOME THINGS HAD TO BE TAKEN ON TRUST AND THAT NONE HAD
     A LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL DATA.
     ----------------------
     Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
     Reader,Department of Geography,
     Editor, Energy & Environment
     (Multi-science,[1]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

     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:      [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
     sunclock: [3]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
              [4]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
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

