Section 2 responses

2. The allegation that CRU has colluded in attempting to diminish the significance of data that might appear to conflict with the 20th century global warming hypothesis The CRU group, in consultation with Professor Michael Mann, is alleged to have systematically attempted to diminish the significance of the Medieval Warm Period, evidenced by an email from Mann 4th June 2003: “I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in review–not sure it is kosher to show that yet though–I’ve put in an inquiry to Judy Jacobs at AGU about this].” The use of the words “contain” and “putative” are alleged to imply an improper intention to diminish the magnitude and significance of the MWP so as to emphasise the late 20th century warming.

Addressing general issues, not specific questions although parts can apply.


One Response to “Section 2 responses”

  1. jimchip Says:

    1054736277.txt The it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet
    have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in
    review–not sure it is kosher to show that yet though–I’ve put in an inquiry to Judy
    Jacobs at AGU about this]

    Whole email:
    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Phil Jones

    ,, Tom Wigley , Tom Crowley , Keith Briffa ,, Michael Oppenheimer , Jonathan Overpeck
    Subject: Re: Prospective Eos piece?
    Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
    Cc:, Scott Rutherford

    Thanks Phil, and Thanks Tom W and Keith for your willingness to help/sign on. This
    certainly gives us a “quorum” pending even a few possible additional signatories I’m
    waiting to hear back from.
    In response to the queries, I will work on a draft today w/ references and two suggested
    figures, and will try to send on by this evening (east coast USA). Tom W indicated that he
    wouldn’t be able look at a draft until Thursday anyway, so why doesn’t everyone just take
    a day then to digest what I’ve provided and then get back to me with comments/changes
    (using word “track changes” if you like).
    I’d like to tentatively propose to pass this along to Phil as the “official keeper” of the
    draft to finalize and submit IF it isn’t in satisfactory shape by the time I have to leave
    (July 11–If I hadn’t mentioned, I’m getting married, and then honeymoon, prior to IUGG in
    Sapporo–gone for about 1 month total). Phil, does that sound ok to you?
    Re Figures, what I had in mind were the following two figures:
    1) A plot of various of the most reliable (in terms of strength of temperature signal and
    reliability of millennial-scale variability) regional proxy temperature reconstructions
    around the Northern Hemisphere that are available over the past 1-2 thousand years to
    convey the important point that warm and cold periods where highly regionally variable.
    Phil and Ray are probably in the best position to prepare this (?). Phil and I have
    recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many
    of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K,
    rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the
    memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet
    have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back [Phil and I have one in
    review–not sure it is kosher to show that yet though–I’ve put in an inquiry to Judy
    Jacobs at AGU about this]. If we wanted to be fancy, we could do this the way certain plots
    were presented in one of the past IPCC reports (was it 1990?) in which a spatial map was
    provided in the center (this would show the locations of the proxies), with “rays”
    radiating out to the top, sides, and bottom attached to rectanges showing the different
    timeseries. Its a bit of work, but would be a great way to convey both the spatial and
    temporal information at the same time.
    2) A version of the now-familiar “spaghetti plot” showing the various reconstructions as
    well as model simulations for the NH over the past 1 (or maybe 2K). To give you an idea of
    what I have in mind, I’m attaching a Science piece I wrote last year that contains the same
    sort of plot.
    However, what I’d like to do different here is:
    In addition to the “multiproxy” reconstructions, I’d like to Add Keith’s maximum latewood
    density-based series, since it is entirely independent of the multiproxy series, but
    conveys the same basic message. I would also like to try to extend the scope of the plot
    back to nearly 2K. This would be either w/ the Mann and Jones extension (in review in GRL)
    or, if that is deemed not kosher, the Briffa et al Eurasian tree-ring composite that
    extends back about 2K, and, based on Phil and my results, appears alone to give a
    reasonably accurate picture of the full hemispheric trend.
    Thoughts, comments on any of this?
    thanks all for the help,
    At 09:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, Phil Jones wrote:

    This is definitely worth doing and I hope you have the time before the 11th, or can
    it on to one of us at that time. As you know I’m away for a couple of days but back
    So count me in. I’ve forwarded you all the email comments I’ve sent to reporters/fellow
    scientists, so you’re fully aware of my views, which are essentially the same as all of
    the list
    and many others in paleo. EOS would get to most fellow scientists. As I said to you the
    day, it is amazing how far and wide the SB pieces have managed to percolate. When it
    out I would hope that AGU/EOS ‘publicity machine’ will shout the message from rooftops
    everywhere. As many of us need to be available when it comes out.
    There is still no firm news on what Climate Research will do, although they will
    have two editors for potentially controversial papers, and the editors will consult
    when papers
    get different reviews. All standard practice I’d have thought. At present the editors
    get no
    guidance whatsoever. It would seem that if they don’t know what standard practice is
    they shouldn’t be doing the job !
    At 22:34 03/06/03 -0400, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear Colleagues,
    Eos has invited me (and prospective co-authors) to write a ‘forum’ piece (see below).
    This was at Ellen Mosely-Thompson’s suggestion, upon my sending her a copy of the
    attached memo that Michael Oppenheimer and I jointly wrote. Michael and I wrote this to
    assist colleagues who had been requesting more background information to help counter
    the spurious claims (with which I believe you’re all now familiar) of the latest
    Baliunas & Soon pieces.
    The idea I have in mind would be to use what Michael and I have drafted as an initial
    starting point for a slightly expanded piece, that would address the same basic issues
    and, as indicated below, could include some references and figures. As indicated in
    Judy Jacobs’ letter below, the piece would be rewritten in such a way as to be less
    explicitly (though perhaps not less implicitly) directed at the Baliunas/Soon claims,
    criticisms, and attacks.
    Phil, Ray, and Peck have already indicated tentative interest in being co-authors. I’m
    sending this to the rest of you (Tom C, Keith, Tom W, Kevin) in the hopes of broadening
    the list of co-authors. I strongly believe that a piece of this sort co-authored by 9
    or so prominent members of the climate research community (with background and/or
    interest in paleoclimate) will go a long way ih helping to counter these attacks, which
    are being used, in turn, to launch attacks against IPCC.
    AGU has offered to expedite the process considerably, which is necessary because I’ll be
    travelling for about a month beginning June 11th. So I’m going to work hard to get
    something together ASAP. I’d would therefore greatly appreciate a quick response from
    each of you as to whether or not you would potentially be willing to be involved as a
    co-author. If you’re unable or unwilling given other current commitments, I’ll
    Thanks in advance for getting back to me on this,

    Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:19:08 -0400
    From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
    Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
    Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
    To: Judy Jacobs , “Michael E. Mann”
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
    Judy and Mike –
    This sounds outstanding.
    Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces?
    If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here.
    Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.
    Best regards,
    At 07:33 PM 06/03/2003 -0400, Judy Jacobs wrote:

    Dear Dr. Mann,
    Thanks for the prompt reply.
    Based on what you have said, it sounds to me as if Mann, Bradley, et al. will not be in
    violation of AGU’s prohibition on duplicate publication.
    The attachment to your e-mail definitely has the look and feel of something that would
    be published in Eos under the “FORUM” column header. FORUM pieces are usually comments
    on articles of any description that have been published in previous issues of Eos; or
    they can be articles on purely scientific or science policy-related issues around which
    there is some controversy or difference of opinion; or articles on current public issues
    that are of interest to the geosciences; or on issues–science or broader policy
    ones—0n which there is an official AGU Position Statement. In this last category, I
    offer, for example, the teaching of creationism in public schools, either alongside
    evolution, or to the exclusion of evolution.
    AGU has an official Position Statement, “Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases,” which
    states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases
    primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean
    globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article—in the form of the attachment
    you sent me– would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et
    al. article wasn’t actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft
    will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on
    “the science” that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be
    solved by simply referencing these papers.
    A Forum piece can be as long as 1500 words, or approximately 6 double-spaced pages. A
    maximum of two figures is permitted. A maximum of 10 references is encouraged, but if
    the number doesn’t exceed 10 too outrageously, I don’t make a fuss, and neither will
    Authors are now asked to submit their manuscripts and figures electronically via AGU’s
    Internet-based Geophysical Electronic Manuscript System (GEMS), which makes it possible
    for the entire submission-review process to be conducted online.
    If you have never used GEMS before, you can register for a login and password, and get
    initial instructions, by going to
    If you would like to have a set of step-by-step instructions for first-time GEMS users,
    please ask me.
    Ellen indicated that she/you would like to get something published sooner rather than
    later. The Eos staff can certainly expedite the editorial process for anything you and
    your colleagues submit.
    Don’t hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
    Best regards,
    Judy Jacobs
    Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear Judy,
    Thanks very much for getting back to me on this. Ellen had mentioned this possibility,
    and I have been looking forward to hearing back about this.
    Michael Oppenheimer and I drafted an informal memo that we passed along to colleagues
    who needed some more background information so that they could comment on the Soon et al
    papers in response to various inquiries they were receiving from the press, etc. I’ve
    attached a copy of this memo.
    It has not been our intention for this memo to appear in print, and it has not been
    submitted anywhere for publication. On the other hand, when Ellen mentioned the
    possibility of publishing something *like* this in e.g. the “Eos” forum, that seemed
    like an excellent idea to me, and several of my colleagues that I have discussed the
    possibility with.
    What we had in mind was to produce a revised version of the basic memo that I’ve
    attached, modifying it where necessary, and perhaps expanding it a bit, seeking broader
    co-authorship by about 9 or so other leading climate scientists. So far, Phil Jones of
    the University of East Anglia, Ray Bradley of the University of Massachusetts, and
    Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, have all indicated their interest in
    co-authoring such a piece. We suspect that a few other individuals would be interested
    in being co-authors as well. I didn’t want to pursue this further, however, until I
    knew whether or not an Eos piece was a possibility.
    So pending further word from you, I would indeed be interested in preparing a
    multi-authored “position” paper for Eos in collaboration with these co-authors, based
    loosely on the memo that Ihave attached.
    I look forward to further word from you on this.
    best regards,
    mike mann
    At 04:59 PM 6/3/2003 -0400, you wrote:

    Dear Dr. Mann,
    I am the managing editor for Eos, the weekly newspaper of the American
    Geophysical Union.
    Late last week, the Eos editor for atmospheric sciences, Ellen
    Mosley-Thompson, asked me if Eos would publish what she called “a
    position paper” by you, Phillip Bradley, et al that would, in effect,
    be a refutation to a paper by Soon et al. that was published in a
    British journal, Energy & Environment a few weeks ago. This Energy &
    Environment article was subsequently picked up by the Discovery
    Channel and other print and electronic media that reach the general
    Before I can answer this question, I need to ask if you and your
    colleagues intend for this position paper to be published
    simultaneously in outlets other than Eos. If this is the case, I’m
    afraid it being published in Eos is a moot point, because of AGU’s no
    duplicate publication policy: if the material has been published
    elsewhere first, AGU will not publish it.
    I look forward to your response.
    Best regrds,
    Judy Jacobs

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: