Friday, May 11, 2012

4139.txt

date: Tue Jan 27 13:36:29 2004
from: Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: RoG
to: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>

Mike,
Good re Rog. I'll expect something when I arrive on Friday. Interviewing all day, so
I'll
include all your things over the weekend. Let me know if you're happy for me to submit.
I'll just need to redo Fig 4 and get a new version of 8 from Scott. Will be pleased to get
it
out of the way. We can add a little in proof if more rubbish appears, but the latest SB
thing isn't worth referencing. Just need to make sure the captions are crystal clear. You
can if necessary add in a reference to your response if you think it appropriate.
I've sent the latest SB thing to Chris Folland and Tom Karl as it says some snide
things
about the TAR. Told them you are responding - with a gist of what you say, some examples
of various options with some series, basically. There are a number of things said about
the
TAR and CRU data and our web page. Nowhere on our page do we say this is the TAR
data - surprised it is so close. Also there are no errors with the data. This is some text
with the data and a paper to reference - which they don't. This piece wouldn't pass an
U/G dissertation - many things said without referencing sources.
As you said to Malcolm - no idea how this got through. Ironic considering your comment
on MM03 and Steve's fairness in sending it to them. If I ever get one of their papers to
review
I am going to ask for all the data and the code !!!! AGU's boxes where you can suggest
reviewers and also indicate reviewers you don't want to review the paper are to blame. If
Alan
Robock (or indeed many others) saw this they would definitely send it to the person the
authors don't want to review it !
I think AGU (or GRL) needs this pointed out to them. Maybe you drop an email to a
few people at AGU (including Alan).
Cheers
Phil
At 06:47 27/01/2004 -0500, you wrote:

Thanks Phil,
I think the paper should be in good shape now. Will put particular effort into looking
at discussions of SB/MM and perhaps make some final changes there. Will try to this
over next few days and get back to you before heading off on Thursday...
By the way, he latest Soon (SLB) has been pulled from production--I pointed out to AGU
that they had altered a plot from my Science (2002) piece in their Figure 3, which is a
blatant violation of Science's copyright policy. AGU agreed and pulled the paper. So
they've got to remove the offending figure and resubmit a final draft! I figure this
delays production a few weeks anyway. And who knows, if the review of my response goes
quick, it could be accepted by then...
Will be interested to hear your comments on latest Soon (SLB). A reporter asked me about
the paper and I said some pretty harsh things which I thought were understood as just
background, apparently now--he quoted me! I hope it doesn't get too widely
distributed...
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:22 AM 1/27/2004 +0000, you wrote:

Mike,

Sending this now, even though I would like to give it one more read through.
Can't see
when I'm going to get the quality time this needs till the weekend, so you have it now.
I think I've done everything - just need to get the line colours clearer on Fig 4.
Needs a thorough read through - I'll do this at the weekend. Hope to get back end of
next week. So you have a week and a bit.
I've added in minor changes suggested by Kim Cobb from her marked up copy. These
were mainly commas here and there and one spelling mistake. These aren't marked. I've
unyellowed your bits of text I agree with. They stay yellow if I've altered them. May
not be
totally consistent in this. It is a page longer - I can reduce some spaces around the
Figure - here bits to make it seem the same length !
99% of this is fine, but pay particular attention to things that the SB/MMs of this
world
can hang onto - mainly in sections 4 and 5. I was surprised on my quick read through
how
many things we had said that the reviewers commented upon. They were there just
somewhere
near. I hope the few sentences at the beginning of Section 2 catches all for these.
Comments
about some proxies are in sections 3-5 for example and not just in section 2 with the
specific
proxies. It reads very well where they are, so will be making as few changes as
possible, when
I read - hopefully none.
Surprised how few I wanted to make when I read it through yesterday on the train
given the
time since submission.
If you think some of my replies are too brief then let me know and I'll expand.
I'll get back to Scott later about the figure. Seems OK at a quick glance, but need
to re-read your email. Have to give two lectures though.
I'm only away next Tuesday (Feb 3?).
Will look at your response to SB at the weekend. Also have just slammed Huang's
comment on your GST paper.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment