Friday, May 11, 2012

4142.txt

date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:34:16 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzeo.psu.edu>
subject: [Fwd: Re: British documentary about global warming]
to: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidtatXYZxyzs.nasa.gov>, Caspar Ammann <ammannatXYZxyzr.edu>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>

<x-flowed>
as I suspected, this is being done by a right wing hack, his name is
Martin Durkin. He appears to be the British version of our John Stossel.

Monbiot's all over him:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/
http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=39

I think it would be good to contact some folks like Geoerge Monbiot to
let them no that this charlatan is up to it again.

anyone have contact info for Monbiot?

thanks,

mike

--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mannatXYZxyz.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm



</x-flowed>
Return-Path: <mdurkinatXYZxyztv.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on mail.meteo.psu.edu
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO
autolearn=no version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: mannatXYZxyzeo.psu.edu
Delivered-To: mannatXYZxyzeo.psu.edu
Received: from smtp03.altohiway.com (smtp03.altohiway.com [195.12.4.241])
by mail.meteo.psu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2582D0006
for <mann@meteo.psu.edu>; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:30:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from server.WAGTV.LOCAL (wag001-26968-rtr-adsl-174.altohiway.com [213.83.100.174] (may be forged))
by smtp03.altohiway.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0JAUEsD009807
for <mann@meteo.psu.edu>; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:30:14 GMT
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Subject: RE: British documentary about global warming
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:29:41 -0000
Message-ID: <A28E00C89A34AD479E6D53BC9BC3CCE3148DD3@server.WAGTV.LOCAL>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: British documentary about global warming
Thread-Index: Acc7QmToVlPygpBGTJa9+t7Xo2wylwAbf6rQAAAkRUA=
From: "Martin Durkin" <mdurkinatXYZxyztv.com>
To: <mannatXYZxyzeo.psu.edu>
Cc: "Eliya Arman" <EliyaatXYZxyztv.com>


Dear Professor Mann,

Thank-you for your note. As you know, better than anyone, your paper,
and the subsequent work in this area, is of enormous significance. The
'hockey stick' is one of the defining images of the whole theory of man
made global warming. Much rests on the assertion that the current
period is the warmest in a thousand years - it suggests, as you know,
that the current warming is something we should be concerned about.

The accuracy, or otherwise, of the hockey stick is therefore of immense
public interest. As you know, your study ran counter to received opinion
on climate history up to that point. It is not unreasonable to ask
whether it was right.

I will do my best to study the references you have sent. But we are
unable, in a film, to reproduce emails. However, we can repeat our
request for a television interview with you, so that you can respond in
person to the critique of McIntyre and McKitrick, Weman and others.

Yours sincerely,
Martin Durkin
Director






-----Original Message-----
From: Eliya Arman
Sent: 19 January 2007 09:59
To: Martin Durkin
Subject: FW: British documentary about global warming



WAG TV Ltd
2d Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

+44 (0) 207 688 2165 - t
+44 (0) 207 688 1702 - f

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael E. Mann [mailto:mann@meteo.psu.edu]
Sent: 18 January 2007 20:49
To: Eliya Arman
Subject: Re: British documentary about global warming

Dear Ms. Arman,

Unfortunately I will not be available for an interview for your
documentary. However, if you are interested in the true current state of

affairs I suggest you contact scientists such as Caspar Ammann of NCAR
and David Ritson of Stanford University, who have independently
investigated the claims of our critics and shown them to be either
incorrect, inconsequential, or both. You can find much relevant
discussion and links to key peer-reviewed recent studies on the site
"RealClimate.org".

I would like to bring three main points to your attention:

1. The studies of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) are more than a
decade old, and a decade of more recent work by a wide range of
researchers both supplants them and validates the key conclusions.

Quoting from a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published

last summer,
" The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late
20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during
at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been
supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the

spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004,
Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn

and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced
changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous
chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses
presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer
supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern
Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century
than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. "

More information on the National Academy report is available here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies
-synthesis-report/



2. The specific criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) have been
invalidated by at least 5 different peer-reviewed studies (only 1 of
which I was associated with).

- Wahl and Ammann (in press) demonstrate that (a) the precise
statistical conventions used in our original work have almost no
influence on the end result, which is quite robust and easily replicated

and that (b)each of their primary claims are seen to have been based on
a number of inappropriate and erroneous procedures on their part. See:
e.g. the discussion here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/new-analysis-repro
duces-graph-of-late-20th-century-temperature-rise/



- Two additional papers by Von Storch et al and Huybers take issue with
the McIntyre and McKitrick claims, discussed here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-roun
d-27/



- This paper published by my collaborators and me: Rutherford, S., Mann,

M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones,
P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature
Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target
Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, 18, 2308-2329, 2005.
Discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10 and the final
published version is available here at:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/RuthetalJClimate05.pdf

The basic conclusion from these additional studies are that the claims
made by M&M (2003) are either incorrect, or do not have any consequences

for the conclusions of MBH98. A figure from Wahl and Amman demonstrates
the
non-impact of any of the legitimate issues that they may have raised
quite clearly:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/WA_RC_Figure1.jpg

3. The Wegman report was not the result of an impartial scientific
inquiry, but was instead commissioned as part of a partisan
investigation that was condemned by leading scientific organizations
around the world, see e.g. the materials available here:
http://branch.ltrr.arizona.edu/
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/bartonletter.html

Neither Wegman nor anyone else associated with that report contacted me
at any time. Nor did he investigate what impact changing statistical
conventions had on the actual climate reconstructions. As was pointed
out long ago (and emphasized by several scientists in congressional
hearings last summer), such changes have an entirely inconsequential
impact on the reconstruction itself. Wegman has also ignored inquiries
from other scientists such as emeritus Stanford University Physics
Professor David Ritson who has requested information about the
calculations within the report. To my knowledge, Wegman has ignored a
congressional inquiry from last year requesting such information.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/followup-to-the-ho
ckeystick-hearings/


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-
at-the-wegman-hearing/



Finally, I would point out that the evidence for human-caused global
warming is based on many independent lines of evidence, including the
fundamental physics of radiative transfer, various different types of
climate observations and sophisticated comparisons of model-predicted
changes with what has been observed. As mentioned above, our early
studies were just one of many indicating that recent climate changes are

anomalous in a long-term context, and all of these studies constitute
just one of multiple lines of evidence implicating human activity for
significant changes that have already been observed in the climate.

From the title of this documentary, I fear that the producers do not
have a proper appreciation of what science actually has to say about the

issues addressed by the documentary.

Sincerely,

Michael E. Mann

Eliya Arman wrote:

>Dear Professor Mann,
>
>Wag TV is producing a documentary for Channel 4 called The Great Global
>Warming Swindle which argues that anthropogenic Co2 is not the primary
>driver of climate change. In the programme we will be featuring a
>critique of your temperature record reconstruction with interviews from
>Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick and Edward Wegman and we would like to
>know whether you would like to have the chance to feature and to
respond
>to their criticism.
>
>Even though the film will be designed to present the sceptics case
>strongly, we feel that it is vital that the voices of other scientists,
>who believe that man-made global warming is a real threat, be present
in
>the film.
>
>It may seem like an unusual request, but I hope you might consider
>granting us an interview for the documentary?
>
>I look forward to hearing from you.
>
>Yours sincerely,
>
>Eliya Arman
>
>WAG TV Ltd
>2d Leroy House
>436 Essex Road
>London N1 3QP
>
>+44 (0) 207 688 2165 - t
>+44 (0) 207 688 1702 - f
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Michael E. Mann
Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075
503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663
The Pennsylvania State University email: mannatXYZxyz.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013

http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm







No comments:

Post a Comment