Tuesday, May 22, 2012

4580.txt

cc: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzker.UCAR.EDU>, tom crowley <tomatXYZxyzan.tamu.edu>, Gabi Hegerl <hegerlatXYZxyze.edu>, Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>
date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:24:15 -0800 (PST)
from: Stephen H Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>
subject: Re: Fwd: McIntyre and McKintrick paper
to: Michael Oppenheimer <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.EDU>

The "postmodernist" Sonja, is anything but naive. I wrote about her
earlier--rejects peer review as elitist and anti-democratic etc, and
ironically for a left-wing type has linked up with the right wing
contrarians--not dull at least, just infuriating and disingenouos. If
anyone wants more, let me know. Cheers, Steve

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Michael Oppenheimer wrote:

> Mike:
>
> Bizarre, and either incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous.
>
> Michael
>
> "Michael E. Mann" wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Thought you'd all be interested in this email.
> >
> > Of course, we have no intention to respond to this, or other further
> > emails from the contrarians.
> >
> > We're working on a full response that will be formally published.
> > We'll let you know the venue when its confirmed,
> >
> > mike m
> >
> >
> >> Delivered-To: mem6uatXYZxyzginia.edu
> >> From: "Sonja.B-C" <Sonja.B-CatXYZxyzl.ac.uk>
> >> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:30:42 +0000
> >> To: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
> >> Subject: McIntyre and McKintrick paper
> >> Cc: L.A.Love@hull.ac.uk, Steve McIntyre <smcintyreatXYZxyzenergy.com>,
> >> Ross McKitrick <rmckitriatXYZxyzuelph.ca>,
> >> timo hameranta <timo.hamerantaatXYZxyzinet.fi>,
> >> Reto Knutti <knuttiatXYZxyzmate.unibe.ch>,
> >> "David R. Legates" <legatesatXYZxyzl.edu>,
> >> George Kukla <kuklaatXYZxyzo.columbia.edu>,
> >> Hans von Storch <Hans.von.StorchatXYZxyzs.de>,
> >> John Christy <christyatXYZxyzos.uah.edu>,
> >> "Keith R. Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, Madhav L. Khandekar"
> >> <mkhandekaratXYZxyzers.com>,
> >> "Rajendra K. Pachauri" <chairipccatXYZxyzi.res.in>,
> >> Ulrich Cubasch <cubaschatXYZxyzat.fu-berlin.de>,
> >> "Spencer R. Weart" <sweartatXYZxyz.org>, Aynsley Kellow
> >> <akellowatXYZxyzs.edu.au>,
> >> Bjorn Lomborg <bjornatXYZxyzau.dk>, Bob Foster <fosbobatXYZxyzpond.com>,
> >> Chris de Freitas <c.defreitasatXYZxyzkland.ac.nz>,
> >> Christopher Essex <essexatXYZxyz.ca>, "Craig D. Idso"
> >> <cidsoatXYZxyzscience.org>,
> >> Curt Holder <cholderatXYZxyzs.edu>, "David E. Wojick"
> >> <dwojickatXYZxyzntel.net>,
> >> Henrik Svensmark <hsvatXYZxyzi.dk>, Hugh W Ellsaesser
> >> <hughelatXYZxyzcast.net>,
> >> ian.castles@anu.edu.auKirill.Ya.Kondratyev
> >> Priority: NORMAL
> >> X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
> >>
> >> Dear Professor Mann
> >>
> >> I have found a list of scientists which contained you email address,
> >>
> >> hence I am able to communicate with you directly. As you already
> >> know, a
> >> paper by McIntyre and McKintrick analysing your famous 'Hockey
> >> stick'
> >> paper is now available to everybody at www.multi-science.co.uk. The
> >> printed version is due later this month. Your, via the attention it
> >> received by the IPCC, is currently widely used by social scientists
> >>
> >> and many researchers in the energy policy community as 'the' proof
> >> for
> >> anthropogenic dangerous warming. Humanity should now act, it argued,
> >> on
> >> the basis of fact rather than the rather suspect 'precautionary
> >> principle'.
> >> I would respectfully like to explain to you and other scientistst
> >> who
> >> may feel offended by the publication from outside 'their' domain,
> >> why
> >> I have published this and other 'attacks' and why I would appreciate
> >> a
> >> publishable reply from you and your colleagues. You may yet win the
> >> argument! Who knows, but an open debate is overdue.
> >>
> >> I do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the
> >> 'scientific'
> >> truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant, but
> >> your 1998 certainly was selected as such and as far as I know, there
> >>
> >> was no protest against its use in global policy advocacy. I may be
> >> wrong, for I am more in contact with research that is based on worse
> >>
> >> case scenarios (from IPCC) than with basic climate scince research.
> >>
> >> ENERGY&ENVIRONMENT has paid attention to the 'science' and 'social
> >> science' controversies associated with the IPCC for over a decade
> >> and
> >> has done so not in order to advance (natural) scientific
> >> understanding,
> >> but with reference to the profound policy relevance of this
> >> understanding and hence of any controversy about the nature of
> >> climate
> >> and the causes of its variability over time, as well as attempts, in
> >>
> >> some circles, to stifle associated controversies, presumably to make
> >>
> >> life easier for policy and policy relevant research.
> >>
> >> I am fully aware of the policy significance of the debate between
> >> 'you,
> >> the IPCC and so-called climate skeptics, and its funding
> >> implications
> >> for so many. But the implications for humanity are even greater. (
> >> In
> >> fact, most of the papers I have published in recent years have used
> >>
> >> the IPCC 'consensus' as baseline.)
> >> I have been an energy policy researcher writing and now editing with
> >> an
> >> international relations/ political science bias; I have a strong
> >> research history in environmental politics, and a basic education in
> >>
> >> physical geography as well as German literature. (Remember acid
> >> rain,
> >> the death of Europ'es forests in a few deacdes? Or the death of the
> >> global ocean from pollution in the 1970s, the subject of my PhD?
> >> Environmental threats have long serves many other agendas, and
> >> natural
> >> scientists may at least be aware of this.)
> >>
> >> I have published 'outsiders' whom I trust because I no longer fully
> >> trust many 'research products' - not because of any failings
> >> because
> >> of individual researchers , but because of the nature of much
> >> contemporary research funding, see
> >> http://www.john-daly.com/sonja-bc.htm. I do know about
> >> research funding from bureaucracies - the importance of the right
> >> buzzwords, policy visions, legal commitments and political
> >> ambitions.
> >>
> >> I simply believe that research controversies related to global
> >> warming
> >> (science, social science, and technology) should be heard by
> >> policy-makers and NGOs in a world were vast amounts of limited
> >> finance
> >> are about to be spend on 'decarbonisation' on the assumption made
> >> by
> >> most social scientists and many policy people that IPCC summary
> >> pronouncements are undisputed and hence are acceptable as
> >> uncontroversial baseline for their work on decarbonisation
> >> economics,
> >> 'clean' technologoly, carbon finance, Kyoto mechanisms etc). I am
> >> encouraging research controversy in the public arena rather than
> >> editorial boardrooms. For example and to my considerable regret,
> >> even
> >> the UK Foreign Office and many of my colleaugues in the energy
> >> policy
> >> research (not in the earth sciences by the way) now believe that
> >> they
> >> need not pay any attention to scientific issues because all climate
> >> skeptics are funded by the oil industry. If this slur is permitted
> >> to
> >> stand, as it seems to be, then journals like mine are surely
> >> permitted
> >> to ask and who is funding the 'global warming' modelling community
> >> if
> >> not governments committed to the UNFCCC, and to explore what agendas
> >>
> >> have attached themselves to the warming threat.
> >>
> >> If I have offended against the ethics of natural science
> >> publication,
> >> which I am not sure of given cases that have been reported to me, I
> >>
> >> apologise and plead ignorance. I forward to hearing from you not
> >> via
> >> a web site, but in the form of a paper or view point that I can
> >> published for libraries and readers.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >> Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
> >> ----------------------
> >> Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
> >> Reader,Department of Geography,
> >> Editor, Energy & Environment
> >> (Multi-science,www.multi-science.co.uk)
> >> Faculty of Science
> >> University of Hull
> >> Hull HU6 7RX, UK
> >> Tel: (0)1482 465349/6341/5385
> >> Fax: (0)1482 466340
> >> Sonja.B-CatXYZxyzl.ac.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
> > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
>

------
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
shsatXYZxyznford.edu

No comments:

Post a Comment