from: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
I have been through this carefully and the substantive content is genuinely fine . The
essence of what Mann and co-workers say is that the purported auditors of their work
(McIntyre and McKitrick- MM ) have failed to demonstrate anything other than if you use a
different selection of predictors you can arrive at a different reconstruction , albeit one
with no verifiable fidelity. Though this is patently obvious , in the context of the undue
interpretation many people are placing on the MM paper , a useful scientific purpose is
served by making it clear that this is what MM have done. Mann and colleagues must to some
extent infer the exact details but they provide sufficient evidence of how MM likely came
to their result. This is a point worth clarifying and from your point of view worth
The manuscript is compact , and the content valid in as much as I can judge. One could get
into semantics as to whether MM actually put their series forward as evidence of global
warmth in the 15th century (as stated in the first paragraph of this manuscript) but this
is to miss the point , which is that this is a convincing refutation of any implication
that MM have in any way disproved the reconstruction of Mann et al . Beside suggesting
some rephrasing at the bottom of page 2 and middle page 4 as suggested , I recommend
publishing as is.
suggested rewording ...
6 lines up from bottom -
instead of "produces their spurious reconstructed 15th warmth century which is.."
"produces the spurious warmth reconstructed by them during the 15th century:
warming which is.."
Half way down page 4
replace "for the reconstruction over the"
"over the independent validation period (1854-1901) corresponding to their calibration of
the reconstruction for the period ". Remove the word "interval" after 1500.
replace " associated of ours upon "
"associate , upon".
Two thirds down page 4
"It was completely incorrect for MM03 to conclude that their reconstruction provided
statistically reliable evidence of anomalous warmth prior in the 15th..."
"It is incorrect for MM03 to conclude that their reconstruction provides statistically
reliable evidence of anomalous warmth in the 15th..".
Northern Hemisphere and Table should start with capitals
Finally, the references need checking to confirm that all in the reference list are cited
in the text (I suspect they are not).
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.