Saturday, May 19, 2012


cc: "raymond s. bradley" <>, "Malcolm Hughes" <>, Keith Briffa <>, Tim Osborn <>, Mike MacCracken <>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>,, Stephen H Schneider <>
date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:56:28 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <>
subject: Fwd: check out who he cc's these to... Fwd: Proposal that Nature

Keith/Tim/Ray/Malcolm/Phil: Our email response will have to go out ASAP (we're preparing
for a mass emailing tomorrow).
To those not yet in the know (please keep it confidential), we can now show that M&M
censored most of our early data in their "improved" data set, by replacing longer series we
had used (that go back to the 15th century), with "better" shorter versions that only go
back to the 17th century. By doing so, they selectively deleted all of our proxy series
that indicate significant 15th-16th century cooling. NOT KIDDING!
They justified this by claiming they couldn't find the older data in the public domain,
though we can cite two public sources where all these data were available. Removing the
proxy data that they removed, we reproduce the anomalous warm spike result--but we can show
that the resulting reconstruction completely fails the standard statistical verification
tests, while our original reconstruction of course passed them fairly well.
Its pretty serious stuff, and we're going to talk to Nature about doing a story on this.
And there may be a need for a formal investigation into scientific dishonesty--but not
quite the one the authors have in mind...


X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:49:56 -0500
From: "S. Fred Singer" <>
Subject: Proposal that Nature consider withdrawing Mann,Bradley,
Hughes 1998
I have now studied yr rejoinder to the rather inadequate reply from Michael Mann to yr
devastating critique (in Energy & Environment) of the underlying data relating to the
"Hockeystick" (the temperature history that has been used by the IPCC and others to
suggest that the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years). [See
earch/trc.html ]
[I had earlier served as a referee of yr basic paper published in E&E (Oct 2003), and
subsequently spent several hours with Steve McIntyre to carefully review its main
points. See ]
I propose that NATURE be asked to appoint an independent panel of statisticians,
econometricians, (and others NOT connected in any way with climate studies) to conduct
an investigation of the MBH98 paper and its critique by McIntyre and McKitrick.
The purpose would be to determine the need to formally withdraw the paper.
This request to Nature should be signed by a large number of scientists, including, if
possible, members of the Royal Society and other academies, editors of scientific
journals, and public figures, such as scientific advisers to presidents and prime
Pls note that I am not suggesting culpability on the part of Mann or his coauthors.
They might not even have been aware of the gross mishandling of the data used in their
publications. Nor can one fault individual scientists connected to the IPCC -- since
IPCC accepts publication in a peer-reviewed journal as prima facie endorsement of its
correctness. The chief responsibility now lies with the editors of NATURE.
Yr comments on this proposal are most welcome.
Fred Singer
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
1600 S. Eads St., Suite 712-S
Arlington, VA 22202-2907
e-mail: Web: [1]
Tel: 703-920-2744
E-fax 815-461-7448; notify by e-mail before sending
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses
to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism
is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."
> Thomas H. Huxley
"If the facts change, I'll change my opinion. What do you do, sir? "
>J. M. Keynes

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

No comments:

Post a Comment