Wednesday, March 14, 2012


date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:56:01 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <>
subject: Fwd: RE: WSJ article
to: Gavin Schmidt <>, Stephen H Schneider <>, Tom Wigley <>, Ben Santer <>,,,,,,,

Interesting that Antonio R. doesn't (or at least claims not to) recognize a lack of balance
in the article.
Please treat this email as confidential. I don't believe that sending a letter to the
editor myself would be the best avenue. But perhaps someone else is interested in pursuing

Subject: RE: WSJ article
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:43:10 -0500
Thread-Topic: WSJ article
Thread-Index: AcUUaIg6ON4Ck5ANQ2OfoGmU0QNsvAAAEqMA
From: "Regalado, Antonio" <>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2005 22:43:10.0610 (UTC) FILETIME=[E423A720:01C51478]
X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at

Hi Mike,

On the personal stuff, Id go with your first impressions, rather than the perceptions of
others. This isnt a one-sided story. Anyway, I certainly want to find out who is right
here and so I am open to writing more as the papers come out and the facts become
clearer, just as I have written in the past about the Soon and Balliunias business (p.
A3not bad) and about paleo-climate (p. 1 story in 2002 about Gary Comers funding,
feature story on Lonnie Thompsons melting glaciers), etc. Would it surprise you to
hear that anytime I write a story which seems to favor global warming I am also deluged
by accusations of bias and demands for corrections etc.?
Regarding Moberg, I think the issue you are raising is a question of emphasis and not a
matter for a correction. The specific sentences youre thinking of (Indeed, new research
from Stockholm University on historical temperatures suggests past fluctuations were
nearly twice as great as the hockey stick shows. That could mean the 20th-century jump
isn't quite so anomalous. ) seem to me be not only factual but precisely to the point of
what the mainstream of science is discussing vis a vis MBH, which was the topic of that
part of my story. For instance, in the Anderson/Woodhouse commentary that accompanied
Moberg in the same issue of Nature, they too stress the increased variability just as I
did and they make no mention of the late 1990s. And as per my email Monday, my article
does also say that other reconstructions also indicate that the 20^th Century was
unusually warm and that the punch line is the same.
Im sure youre fully sick of writing letters, but this may be right opportunity for a
letter to the editor from you or someone who you can second. The person to send a letter
to is [1] If you want, CC: me and my editor,
[2] Or even an editorial on the broader topic of where the
science is at. I can give you the name for who to send an editorial to if you want it.
It is probably worth pointing out that no amount of debate can change the facts buried
in those tree rings, etc..
Yes, I will continue to write about climate. The next topic is impacts. What do you
think is the best story there? Id like to write about current impacts rather than only
projected ones as these will be more tangible for the reader. Also, since the Arctic has
been well covered Id be interested in impacts at lower latitudes.

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

No comments:

Post a Comment