Monday, March 5, 2012


cc: Tim Osborn <>, Phil Jones <>, Keith Briffa <>,,, Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>, Tom Wigley <>, tom crowley <>, Gabi Hegerl <>, Jonathan Overpeck <>, Steve Schneider <>
date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:30:48 -0700
from: Tom Wigley <>
subject: Re: Fwd: McIntyre and McKintrick paper
to: "Michael E. Mann" <>

Yes -- ignore Sonja. Poor woman, she can't even write or spell properly.
Mrs Malaprop would be proud of her.
Another sad aspect is the strong hint of paranoia in her letter to you. It
is laced with implications that scientists are distorting their science, that we
are subservient to political agendas, and so on. Nothing new, of course,
but she really seems to believe it. I suspect there is a psychology PhD here.
I must commend you on the detective work you did to figure out what
M&M did wrong. Perhaps the focus of any 'response' could be on
elucidating the details of and justifications for your methods, using M&M
as an example of how not to do it? In this way the paper would be a
direct contribution to the science, with the rebuttal of M&M coming as
a byproduct. I have said this before, but this is how Ben Santer, Karl
Taylor and I responded to some junk criticism of our detection work by
Legates (in GRL). This puts the science first and relegates the criticism
to its proper place as not worth making a direct response to. (Hmmm, is
that good grammar?)
Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear all,
Thought you'd all be interested in this email.
Of course, we have no intention to respond to this, or other further emails from the
We're working on a full response that will be formally published. We'll let you know the
venue when its confirmed,
mike m

Delivered-To: [1]
From: "Sonja.B-C" [2]<>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:30:42 +0000
To: "Michael E. Mann" [3]<>
Subject: McIntyre and McKintrick paper
Cc: [4], Steve McIntyre [5]<>,
Ross McKitrick [6]<>,
timo hameranta [7]<>,
Reto Knutti [8]<>,
"David R. Legates" [9]<>,
George Kukla [10]<>,
Hans von Storch [11]<>,
John Christy [12]<>,
"Keith R. Briffa <[13], Madhav L. Khandekar"
"Rajendra K. Pachauri" [15]<>,
Ulrich Cubasch [16]<>,
"Spencer R. Weart" [17]<>, Aynsley Kellow [18]<>,
Bjorn Lomborg [19]<>, Bob Foster [20]<>,
Chris de Freitas [21]<>,
Christopher Essex [22]<>, "Craig D. Idso" [23]<>,
Curt Holder [24]<>, "David E. Wojick" [25]<>,
Henrik Svensmark [26]<>, Hugh W Ellsaesser [27]<>,
Priority: NORMAL
X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
Dear Professor Mann
I have found a list of scientists which contained you email address,
hence I am able to communicate with you directly. As you already know, a
paper by McIntyre and McKintrick analysing your famous 'Hockey stick'
paper is now available to everybody at [29] The
printed version is due later this month. Your, via the attention it
received by the IPCC, is currently widely used by social scientists
and many researchers in the energy policy community as 'the' proof for
anthropogenic dangerous warming. Humanity should now act, it argued, on
the basis of fact rather than the rather suspect 'precautionary
I would respectfully like to explain to you and other scientistst who
may feel offended by the publication from outside 'their' domain, why
I have published this and other 'attacks' and why I would appreciate a
publishable reply from you and your colleagues. You may yet win the
argument! Who knows, but an open debate is overdue.
I do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the 'scientific'
truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant, but
your 1998 certainly was selected as such and as far as I know, there
was no protest against its use in global policy advocacy. I may be
wrong, for I am more in contact with research that is based on worse
case scenarios (from IPCC) than with basic climate scince research.
ENERGY&ENVIRONMENT has paid attention to the 'science' and 'social
science' controversies associated with the IPCC for over a decade and
has done so not in order to advance (natural) scientific understanding,
but with reference to the profound policy relevance of this
understanding and hence of any controversy about the nature of climate
and the causes of its variability over time, as well as attempts, in
some circles, to stifle associated controversies, presumably to make
life easier for policy and policy relevant research.
I am fully aware of the policy significance of the debate between 'you,
the IPCC and so-called climate skeptics, and its funding implications
for so many. But the implications for humanity are even greater. ( In
fact, most of the papers I have published in recent years have used
the IPCC 'consensus' as baseline.)
I have been an energy policy researcher writing and now editing with an
international relations/ political science bias; I have a strong
research history in environmental politics, and a basic education in
physical geography as well as German literature. (Remember acid rain,
the death of Europ'es forests in a few deacdes? Or the death of the
global ocean from pollution in the 1970s, the subject of my PhD?
Environmental threats have long serves many other agendas, and natural
scientists may at least be aware of this.)
I have published 'outsiders' whom I trust because I no longer fully
trust many 'research products' - not because of any failings because
of individual researchers , but because of the nature of much
contemporary research funding, see
[30] I do know about
research funding from bureaucracies - the importance of the right
buzzwords, policy visions, legal commitments and political
I simply believe that research controversies related to global warming
(science, social science, and technology) should be heard by
policy-makers and NGOs in a world were vast amounts of limited finance
are about to be spend on 'decarbonisation' on the assumption made by
most social scientists and many policy people that IPCC summary
pronouncements are undisputed and hence are acceptable as
uncontroversial baseline for their work on decarbonisation economics,
'clean' technologoly, carbon finance, Kyoto mechanisms etc). I am
encouraging research controversy in the public arena rather than
editorial boardrooms. For example and to my considerable regret, even
the UK Foreign Office and many of my colleaugues in the energy policy
research (not in the earth sciences by the way) now believe that they
need not pay any attention to scientific issues because all climate
skeptics are funded by the oil industry. If this slur is permitted to
stand, as it seems to be, then journals like mine are surely permitted
to ask and who is funding the 'global warming' modelling community if
not governments committed to the UNFCCC, and to explore what agendas
have attached themselves to the warming threat.
If I have offended against the ethics of natural science publication,
which I am not sure of given cases that have been reported to me, I
apologise and plead ignorance. I forward to hearing from you not via
a web site, but in the form of a paper or view point that I can
published for libraries and readers.
Best wishes
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader,Department of Geography,
Editor, Energy & Environment
Faculty of Science
University of Hull
Hull HU6 7RX, UK
Tel: (0)1482 465349/6341/5385
Fax: (0)1482 466340

Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: [33] Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137

No comments:

Post a Comment