date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:44 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
to: Ray Bradley <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, "Malcolm Hughes" <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccracatXYZxyzcast.net>, Steve Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>, tom crowley <tomatXYZxyzan.tamu.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzker.UCAR.EDU>, Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, asocciatXYZxyz.net, Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tim_ProfetaatXYZxyzberman.senate.gov, Ben Santer <santer1atXYZxyzl.gov>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerlatXYZxyze.edu>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4atXYZxyz.edu>, "Lonnie G. Thompson" <thompson.3atXYZxyz.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>
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,
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
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
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: mannatXYZxyzginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137