Thursday, May 17, 2012


cc: Ray Bradley <>, Malcolm Hughes <>, Mike MacCracken <>, tom crowley <>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzker.UCAR.EDU>, Jonathan Overpeck <>, <>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>, Keith Briffa <>, Phil Jones <>, Tim Osborn <>, <>, Ben Santer <>, Gabi Hegerl <>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <>, "Lonnie G. Thompson" <>, Kevin Trenberth <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:20:48 -0800 (PST)
from: Stephen H Schneider <>
subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
to: "Michael E. Mann" <>

Hi all. All you had to say, Mike, was Sojna B-C, and it explains it all.
She is an ideological zealot--not for the coal industry, but for
anything "anti-establishment". She is one of the "deconstrutionists" that
seem to plague the UK--you know, that science is "socially constructed" a
focus group of farmers and miners are as qualified to assess risk as the
IPCC. SHe hates "elitism"--us that is--since we have entry barriers to
join the technical debate (you have to know something, such a concept!)
--and that is anti-democratic. They are decidely non-empirical,
referencing social theory rather than doing in-depth case study analyses.
THey wouldn't get tenure here as dog catcher, but some places that groove
on post-modernism and other intellectually bankrupt fads actually hire
such folks as professors. I once had a ten e-mail dialogue with her
because she loves TImo H and his gang of retired closed minds and their
little chat network, and I tried for weeks to explain to her why they
were not cute and didn't deserve a forum until they had
disciplined and competent arguments. All she could say is that they were
"fresh thinkers" and the principle of contrarian welcoming was more
important--democratic participation in science rather than elitist
inside-the-club peer review etc. The problem isn't them--they're hopeless
and intellectually miniscule--it is that they lend the imprimeteur of peer
reviewed legitimacy to trash. The bottom line is we can't make the world
safe against polemics, and Mike O. is right--that you can't give
yourselves ulcers trying to argue with the likes of Sonja, CATO etc. I
agree you need a defense, but a well written rebuttal and a careful
selection of who you spend time talking to--national media, not every
backwater political reporter who calls and will turn it into a
"he-said/she-said" circus--would be my advice. Save most of your energy
for the high priority fights and, every once and again, doing more
science--you know, the elitist stuff that we pretend should be done with
rigor and standards before you earn the right to being heard. Cheers,

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Michael E. Mann wrote:

> Thanks Steve,
> Yes, the timing is suspicious at best--this� appears yet another act of
> desperation by those losing the battle on the scientific front. I will, naturally,
> resist the bait, while nonetheless providing the material necessary to defend my
> colleagues and me against the scurrilous claims. Any efforts that others can make
> in confronting the claims helps to deny them what they're looking for (entraining
> me into the fray).
> For this reason, I'm asking my friends and colleagues to consider responding on my
> behalf� if contacted for their opinions on the matter.
> I've prepared a response (attached word file) to what I anticipate the paper
> claims. I may expand upon this once a copy of the paper is available, but I
> believe it may be important to have an initial response on hand.
> I anticipate that the mainstream media will� ignore their attempts at promoting
> this. But CATO, API, etc. will certainly be trying to promote this inside the
> beltway as McCain-Lieberman grows near,
> Best regards,
> mike
> p.s. I've attached the official E&E "Mission Statement" written by Sonja
> Boehmer-Christiansen, which I believe many of you will find eye opening...
> At 10:19 PM 10/26/2003 -0800, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
> Hang in there Mike, just take pride that you are hurting them and they
> need to dissemble to get attention. It will fade in time, but the
> timing
> is not accidental--all about the McCain-Lieberman climate bill to be
> voted
> on this week. It will quiet down soon thereafter, so don't take the
> bait--just point out soberly why they are wrong and that they have no
> credible analysis to substitute for yours and the many real scientific
> investigators who independently do the same kinds of work--we
> replicate to
> gain confidence--and come up with similar conclusions. I'll attach my
> "final" testimony and some answers to Senator McCain's questions
> motivated
> by Sen. Inhofe's July28 Senate floor diatribes against me, Tom, you
> and
> others--cleverly disguised to say if one reads us between the lines we
> support THEIR positions. That makes responding in short paragraphs
> impossible, so my answers are way too long for Congress, but to give
> a paragraph would leave them guessing who was right and what happened.
> If
> anyone has any edits to suggest, I need them by Monday afternoon at
> the
> latest as COB monday McCain staff puts it up on the record I
> understand.
> Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman,
> they
> are forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate
> policy--a non trivial price some may pay politically if they guess
> worng
> what it means for their re-election (another reason why CATO et al are
> so
> shrill right now because this is a real threat to them and anything
> goes
> for them right now, including lies, character assainations etc--again,
> take no bait!). SUch "fun", CHeers,
> Steve
> PS TOm, I presume you got plenty of questions too? Send me yours when
> you
> get a chance.
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Michael E. Mann wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > 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,
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >������� 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 century.
> >�������������� 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 the
> >������ past...."
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> >�������������������� 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
> >���������
> >
> ------
> Stephen H. Schneider, Professor
> Dept. of Biological Sciences
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.
> Tel: (650)725-9978
> Fax: (650)725-4387
> ______________________________________________________________
> ������������������� 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
> ��������

Stephen H. Schneider, Professor
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A.

Tel: (650)725-9978
Fax: (650)725-4387

No comments:

Post a Comment