date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:10:18 -0500
from: "Michael E. Mann" <mannatXYZxyzginia.edu>
subject: final for the night
to: email@example.com, Gabi Hegerl <hegerlatXYZxyze.edu>, Jonathan Overpeck <jtoatXYZxyzrizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Malcolm Hughes <mhughesatXYZxyzr.arizona.edu>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccracatXYZxyzcast.net>, Phil Jones <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Ray Bradley <rbradleyatXYZxyz.umass.edu>, Ben Santer <santer1atXYZxyzl.gov>, Steve Schneider <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>, "Lonnie G. Thompson" <thompson.3atXYZxyz.edu>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <thompson.4atXYZxyz.edu>, Tim_Profeta@lieberman.senate.gov, tom crowley <tomatXYZxyzan.tamu.edu>, Kevin Trenberth <trenbertatXYZxyz.ucar.edu>, Tim Osborn <t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Tom Wigley <wigleyatXYZxyzker.UCAR.EDU>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jim Salinger" <j.salingeratXYZxyza.co.nz>, Annie_Petsonk@environmentaldefense.org, email@example.com, mannatXYZxyzginia.edu
This is my final email for a while--hopefully this is the end of this. Attached is a
revised and expanded statement of response to the paper, having seen more of the details
now. please feel free to use it in any way that may be helpful.
After having gone over their posted analysis and procedure, I've refined my comments
further--some of my previous conclusions about what they have done were not correct. The
main problem is a bit more subtle, probably having to do w/ how the Reconstructed Principal
Components are scaled. My attached comments deal with both the scientific problems w/ what
they have done, and the problems w/ the lack of any legitimate scientific peer review...
The mainstream media doesn't seem to be biting at this thing, but you can be sure there
will be an attempt to use this inside the beltway...
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
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EandEResponse-revised.doc"