Friday, April 13, 2012

3399.txt

cc: rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, mannatXYZxyzginia.edu
date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:28:10 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Mann, Bradley and Hughes
to: Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

HI Tim,
These folks are fundamentally dishonest in everything they do or say--as you have noted,
they have certainly done everything they can to promote the ridiculous assertion of an
anomalously warm 15th century.
Of course it is laughable for them to claim that their findings "are unaffected" by the
errors we've uncovered. They will try to invent some lawyeristic way out of this, but
that's about all we can expect from them. They have, and will never have, any legitimate
defense for having eliminated the majority of proxy data used by us prior to AD 1600. It
is, as you know, essentially this one action on their part that leads to their spurious
result. And that result doesn't pass cross-validation! For them to claim that they will be
publishing a *legitimate* reponse (i.e., one that passes muster in the peer-reviewed
literature) to this is baffling, because there is no legitimate response.
We hope that our formal response is accepted and published soon, and once it is, I agree w/
you that it would be perfectly appropriate to remove your own commentary. But for the time
being, I think it would be useful for you to keep it there.
Thanks for updating us on the matter,
mike
At 04:16 PM 1/6/2004 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote:

Dear all,
here is the latest from McIntyre. He remains unhappy with the commentary on our website
[1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/paleo/ where we made your preliminary response
available - I'm beginning to wish we had left it to you guys (MBH) to post your
preliminary response!
I think our commentary and posting of your preliminary response is only necessary for
the present, while you have no published formal response. Once your formal response is
published, I'll remove our webpage - unless you feel otherwise?
Cheers
Tim

From: "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyreatXYZxyzronto.ca>
To: "Tim Osborn" <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
Cc: "Ross McKitrick" <rmckitriatXYZxyzuelph.ca>
Subject: Re: Mann, Bradley and Hughes
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:26:13 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
> >We have some other concerns with your own commentary on our article in
> >Energy & Environment. We do not claim to show that 15th century
> >temperatures were higher than 20th century temperatures. We only claim
> >that application of MBH methods to corrected and updated data do not
> >entitle MBH to claim 20th century uniqueness. We do not endorse the MBH98
> >methods and consequently did not put forward a reconstruction of our own.
>
> >We have some other concerns with your own commentary on our article
in
> >Energy & Environment. We do not claim to show that 15th century
> >temperatures were higher than 20th century temperatures. We only
claim
> >that application of MBH methods to corrected and updated data do not
> >entitle MBH to claim 20th century uniqueness. We do not endorse the
MBH98
> >methods and consequently did not put forward a reconstruction of our
own.
>
> Our point about the warm 15th century was simply that it should have
raised
> alarm bells that something might have gone wrong with your analysis.
>
> But we have seen others making use of your Figure 8 as if your were
putting
> it forward as a new reconstruction, perhaps because the labelling of
it
> with "corrected version" implied that it was a new version.
>
Dear Tim,
Your response above is very unsatisfactory. We believe that the language in
our article was clear that we were simply criticizing MBH98 and not positing
a new reconstruction of our own.
For instance, in the conclusion we state: "Without endorsing the MBH98
methodology or choice of source data, we were able to apply the MBH98
methodology to a data base with improved quality control and found that
their own method, carefully applied to their own intended source data,
yielded a Northern Hemisphere temperature index in which the late 20th
century is unexceptional..."
The wording was deliberately careful--we did not, for instance, say
anything like "this shows that the 15th century was warm compared to the
late 20th century."
For additional certainty, we posted the following at our FAQ:
"Your graph seems to show that the 15th Century was warmer than today's
climate: is this what you're claiming?
a.. No. We're saying that Mann et al., based on their methodology and
corrected data, cannot claim that the 20th century is warmer than the
15th century - the nuance is a little different. To make a positive claim
that the 15th century was warmer than the late 20th century would require an
endorsement of both the methodology and the common interpretation of the
results which we are neither qualified nor inclined to offer. "
Your justification for retaining your comment, in the face of our
explicit assertions in the paper and in the Supplementary Information
that it misrepresents our position, is that others have considered
our graphic as an alternative reconstruction, rather than as a carrying
through of Mann's methods and data to their logical conclusion.
Have you considered that perhaps people make this mistake because they
learned it on your web site? The following comment of yours obviously
contributes to the dissemination of a false impression:
"Especially when the MM03 results, regarding a warm 15th century, were
also at odds with the many other reconstructions that have been published,
not just at odds with MBH98."
We have considered the observations made by MBH on
"errors" in our implementation of their method. We will be responding in
detail but, for your information, our fundamental findings are
unaffected by the issues raised in Mann's response.
Again, we believe that no useful purpose is served by your inaccurate
characterization of our position and we re-iterate our request that you
correct this situation. You are at liberty to choose sides in the
underlying debate as you wish, but you do have an obligation to present
each side's position accurately and especially when you have been given
explicit
notice and have an opportunity to remedy the matter.
Yours truly
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
e-mail: t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk
phone: +44 1603 592089
fax: +44 1603 507784
web: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
sunclock: [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm

______________________________________________________________
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
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

No comments:

Post a Comment