date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:58:23 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
subject: Re: One way out....
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
actually, that isn't quite yet a fair comparison, because I didn't do the stepwise
reconstruction using the eigenvector subsets they did--I just used 1 eigenvector and did
the whole 1400-1980 period. So stay tuned for an even more appropriate comparison...
At 05:11 PM 10/30/2003 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:
Ray et al
I agree with this idea in principle . Whatever scientific differences and fascination
with the nuances of techniques we may /may not share, this whole process represents the
most despicable example of slander and down right deliberate perversion of the
scientific process , and bias (unverified) work being used to influence public
perception and due political process. It is , however, essential that you (we) do not
get caught up in the frenzy that these people are trying to generate, and that will more
than likely lead to error on our part or some premature remarks that we might regret. I
do think the statement re Mike's results needs making , but only after it can be based
on repeated work and in full collaboration of us all. I am happy to push Tim to take the
lead and collaborate in this - and I feel we could get sanction very quickly from the
DEFRA if needed. BUT this must be done calmly , and in the meantime a restrained
statement but out saying we have full confidence in Mike's objectivity and independence
- which we can not say of the sceptics. In fact I am moved tomorrow to contact Nature
and urge them to do an editorial on this . The political machinations in Washington
should NOT dictate the agenda or scheduling of the work - but some cool statement can be
made saying we believe the "prats have really fucked up someway" - and that the
premature publication of their paper is reprehensible . Much of the detail in Mikes
response though is not sensible (sorry Mike) and is rising to their bate.
At 11:55 AM 10/30/03 -0500, raymond s. bradley wrote:
Tim, Phil, Keef:
I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved,
to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by "for"
and "against" global warming proponents. However, if an "independent group" such as you
guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit", and
if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.
It's clear from the figure that Reno Knuti sent yesterday that something pretty whacky
happened in their analysis prior to ~AD1600, and this led Mike to figure out the
If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would
help quash further arguments, although here, at least, it is already quite out of
control.....yesterday in the US Senate the debate opened on the McCain-Lieberman bill to
control CO2 emissions from power plants. Sen Inhofe stood up & showed the M & M figure
and stated that Mann et al--& the IPCC assessment --was now disproven and so there was
no reason to control CO2 emissions.....I wonder how many times a "scientific" paper gets
reported on in the Senate 3 days after it is published....
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
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