cc: Ray Bradley <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@comcast.net>, 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>, Phil Jones <p.jones@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>
date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:19:17 -0800 (PST)
from: Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>
subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd: 
to: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>

Hang in there Mike, just take pride that you are hurting them and they
need to dissemble to get attention. It will fade in time, but the timing
is not accidental--all about the McCain-Lieberman climate bill to be voted
on this week. It will quiet down soon thereafter, so don't take the
bait--just point out soberly why they are wrong and that they have no
credible analysis to substitute for yours and the many real scientific
investigators who independently do the same kinds of work--we replicate to
gain confidence--and come up with similar conclusions. I'll attach my
"final" testimony and some answers to Senator McCain's questions motivated
by Sen. Inhofe's July28 Senate floor diatribes against me, Tom, you and
others--cleverly disguised to say if one reads us between the lines we
support THEIR positions. That makes responding in short paragraphs
impossible, so my answers are way too long for Congress, but to give
a paragraph would leave them guessing who was right and what happened. If
anyone has any edits to suggest, I need them by Monday afternoon at the
latest as COB monday McCain staff puts it up on the record I understand.
Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they
are forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate
policy--a non trivial price some may pay politically if they guess worng
what it means for their re-election (another reason why CATO et al are so
shrill right now because this is a real threat to them and anything goes
for them right now, including lies, character assainations etc--again,
take no bait!). SUch "fun", CHeers,
Steve
PS TOm, I presume you got plenty of questions too? Send me yours when you
get a chance.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, 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
>  http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>

------
Stephen H. Schneider, Professor
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.

Tel: (650)725-9978
Fax: (650)725-4387
shs@stanford.edu

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\McCainQuestions for Schneider.doc"

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Schneider--McCain-LiebermanTestimony 10-01-03.doc"
