Section 5.3 Responses

5. It is alleged that there have been improper attempts to influence the peer review system and a violation of IPCC procedures in attempting to prevent the publication of opposing ideas. It is alleged that there has been an attempt to subvert the peer review process and exclude publication of scientific articles that do not support the Jones-Mann position on global climate change. A paper by Soon & Balunias was published in the Journal Climate Research arguing that the 20th century was abnormally warm.An email from Professor Michael Mann on 11th March 2003 contained the following: “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”  The  allegation is that journals might be pressured to reject submitted articles that do not support a particular view of climate change. In an email to a fellow researcher in June 2003, Briffa wrote: “Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting (an unnamed paper) to support Dave Stahle‟s and really as soon as you can.” In an email to Mann on 8th July 2004, Jones wrote: “The other paper by MM is just garbage. […] I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer- review literature is!” The allegation is of an attempt to prevent ideas being published and the author being prepared to subvert the peer review process for a journal and to undermine the IPCC principle of accounting properly for contradictory views. 


3. In relation to the third, where do you draw the line between rejecting a paper on grounds of bad science etc, and attempting to suppress contrary views?

18 Responses to “Section 5.3 Responses”

  1. Jimchip Says:

    1107899057 04 Feb 2005 (Mann quoted in Briffa to Folland):

    Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:52:53 -0500
    To: Andy Revkin
    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: FW: “hockey stock” methodology misleading
    Hi Andy,
    The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with.

    Please see the RealClimate response:
    and also:

    The Moberg et al paper is at least real science. But there are some real problems with it (you’ll want to followup w/ people like Phil Jones for a 2nd opinion). While the paper actually reinforces the main conclusion of previous studies (it also finds the late 20th century to be the warmest period of the past two millennia), it challenges various reconstructions
    using tree-ring information (which includes us, but several others such as Jones et al, Crowley, etc). I’m pretty sure, by the way, that a very similar version of the paper was rejected previously by Science. A number of us are therefore very surprised that Nature is publishing it, given a number of serious problems:

  2. jimchip Says:


    From: Anders Moberg
    To: Martin Juckes
    Subject: McIntyre, McKitrick & MITRIE …
    Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:18:24 +0100

    The problematic bit of text starts on p. 16, para 4: (“The failure of
    MM2003 … is partly due to a misunderstanding of the stepwise
    reconstruction method”) and slightly below: (“MM2003 only calculate
    principal components for the period when all chronologies are present”).

    I read through the MM2003 paper yesterday. From what is written there,
    on p. 763-765, it appears that they were well aware of the stepwise
    method. On p. 763, about at the middle of the page, they write:
    “Following the description of MBH98 … our construction is done
    piecewise for each of the periods listed in Table 8, using the roster of
    proxies available through the period and the selection of TPCs for each
    period listed in Table 8”.

    This is clearly at odds to what is written in our manuscript. Has it
    been documented somewhere else that MM2003, despite what they wrote,
    really misunderstood the stepwise technique?

  3. jimchip Says:

    1189515774.txt see also 4.2 (Keenan)

    >>> Subject: paper on alleged Wang fraud
    >>> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:39:02 +0100

    >>> From: “Peiser, Benny”
    >>> To:

    >>> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2007 17:39:03.0905 (UTC)

    >>> Phil
    >>> I have attached Doug’s response to your comments. As far as I can
    >>> see, his basic accusation seems unaffected by your criticism. Unless
    >>> there is any compelling evidence that Keenan’s main claim is
    >>> unjustified or unsubstantiated, I intend to publish his paper in the
    >>> forthcoming issue of E&E.
    >>> Please let me know by the end of the week if you have any additional
    >>> arguments that may sway me in my decision.
    >>> With best regards
    >>> Benny

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

    Subject: Re: Fwd: paper on alleged Wang fraud
    Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:02:54 -0400
    Cc: Gavin Schmidt

  4. jimchip Says:


    From: Ben Santer
    Subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news
    Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:13:21 -0800

    Dear Phil,

    Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
    to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He
    doesn’t realize that, as the length of record increases and trend
    confidence intervals decrease, even trivially small differences between
    an individual observed trend and the multi-model average trend are
    judged to be highly significant. These model-versus-observed trend
    differences are, however, of no practical significance whatsoever – they
    are well within the structural uncertainties of the observed MSU trends.

    It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre’s paper for review.
    Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the
    Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk!

    I will write to Keith again. The Symposium wouldn’t be the same without
    him. I think Tom would be quite disappointed.

    Have fun in Switzerland!

    With best regards,


    > With free wifi in my room, I’ve just seen that M+M have
    > submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic – using more
    > years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data –
    > laughing at the directory name – FOIA? Also they make up
    > statements saying you’ve done this following Obama’s
    > statement about openness in government! Anyway you’ll likely
    > get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
    > Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I’ll
    > suggest this.
    > Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood’s
    > work. He is a prat. He’s just had a response to a comment
    > piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
    > they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn’t understand independence if it
    > hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
    > reading them unless interested.
    > Cheers
    > Phil

  5. jimchip Says:

    The search pulls up a lot wrt to 5.1-5.3

  6. jimchip Says:

    3. In relation to the third, where do you draw the line between rejecting a paper on grounds of bad science etc, and attempting to suppress contrary views?

    Just a comment There is no distinction in Phil’s mind.

    “I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling – worst word I can
    think of today”
    see 5.1

  7. jimchip Says:

    1054748574.txt Briffa to Cook

    I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard
    and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon
    as you can. Please

    From: Keith Briffa
    To: Edward Cook
    Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
    Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003

    I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard
    and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon
    as you can. Please
    At 08:00 AM 5/28/03 -0400, you wrote:

  8. jimchip Says:

    1054756929.txt I think this also breaks reviewer confidentiality

    From: Keith Briffa
    To: Edward Cook
    Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
    Date: Wed Jun 4 16:02:09 2003

    Hi Big Boy
    You just caught me as I was about to slope off after a brutal day – we spent all day
    yesterday interviewing for a job we have and then someone accepted it – and now Janice
    tells us we don’t have the money to pay at therate the job was advertised for! This attack
    sounds like the last straw- from what you say it is a waste of time my looking at it but
    send a copy anyway. The file you have is an old version of a reconstruction output for one
    Tornetrask reconstruction – if it was labelled something like 990 it is the original Nature
    one , but 997 (i Think//1) would make it the Climate Dynamics one . Trouble is I will have
    to go back and find out which . Please ring if I haven’t my tomorrow to remind me – and
    concentrate on the review for now. I will also talk about an extended nearby data set
    (temp) that might allow a longer more rigorous validation . Kirsten has just done Math GCSE
    and Amy her driving test so I have to go and picjk them up. I will looke at the file and be
    ready with an answer by midday my time. the best and a beer til then
    At 09:50 AM 6/4/03 -0400, you wrote:

    Hi Keith,
    Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I
    got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and
    Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims
    that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression)
    is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main
    whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper.
    Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the
    column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.
    If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to
    review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It
    won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically,
    but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies,
    without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a
    practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of
    their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show
    how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced.
    Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into
    the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).
    [snip of data and location key]
    I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard
    and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as
    soon as you can. Please
    At 08:00 AM 5/28/03 -0400, you wrote:

    Hi Keith,
    Okay, here is a zipped archive containing Jan’s ring-width measurement series. The
    directory names are:

  9. Jimchip Says:

    1057941657.txt Santer to Phil re Douglas, Christy, Michaels
    (funny on how I see Hulme cc’d but nary a peep on some issues…)
    Applies to 5.2 also. All in response to Hulme’s passing on:

    > >>>>Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Best wishes,
    > >>>>Otto Kinne
    > >>>>Director, Inter-Research

    From: Ben Santer
    To: Phil Jones ,
    Subject: More on Climate Research…..
    Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:57 -0700
    Cc: Tom Wigley , “Michael E. Mann” , Mike Hulme

    Dear Phil,

    In June 2003, Climate Research published a paper by David Douglass et al. The
    “et al.” includes John Christy and Pat Michaels. Douglass et al. attempt to
    debunk the paper that Tom and I published in JGR in 2001 (“Accounting for the
    effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature
    trends”; JGR 106, 28033-28059). The Douglass et al. paper claims (and purports
    to show) that collinearity between ENSO, volcanic, and solar predictor variables
    is not a serious problem in studies attempting to estimate the effects of these
    factors on MSU tropospheric temperatures. Their work has serious scientific
    flaws – it confuses forcing and response, and ignores strong temporal
    autcorrelation in the individual predictor variables, incorrectly assuming
    independence of individual monthly means in the MSU 2LT data. In the Douglass et
    al. view of the world, uncertainties in predictor variables, observations, etc.
    are non-existent. The error bars on their estimated ENSO, volcano, and solar
    regression coefficients are miniscule.

    Over a year ago, Tom and I reviewed (for JGR) a paper by Douglass et al. that
    was virtually identical to the version that has now appeared in Climate
    Research. We rejected it. Prior to this, both Tom and I had engaged in a long
    and frustrating dialogue with Douglass, in which we attempted to explain to him
    that there are large uncertainties in the deconvolution of ENSO, volcano, and
    solar signals in short MSU records. Douglass chose to ignore all of the comments
    we made in this exchange, as he later ignored all of the comments we made in our
    reviews of his rejected JGR paper.

    Although the Douglass et al. Climate Research paper is largely a criticism of
    our previously-published JGR paper, neither Tom nor I were asked to review the
    paper for Climate Research. Nor were any other coauthors of the Santer et al.
    JGR paper asked to review the Douglass et al. manuscript. I’m assuming that
    Douglass specifically requested that neither Tom nor I should be allowed to act
    as reviwers of his Climate Research paper. It would be interesting to see his
    cover letter to the journal.

    In the editorial that you forwarded, Dr. Kinne writes the following:

    “If someone wishes to criticise a published paper s/he must present facts and
    arguments and give criticised parties a chance to defend their position.” The
    irony here is that in our own experience, the “criticised parties” (i.e., Tom
    and I) were NOT allowed to defend their positions.

    Based on Kinne’s editorial, I see little hope for more enlightened editorial
    decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually
    publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We’ll publish this rebuttal in
    JGR – not in Climate Research.

    With best regards,

    > At 07:51 04/07/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
    > >Mike (Mann),
    > >I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what
    > >would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell
    > >people to avoid the journal?

    > >Michael E. Mann wrote:
    > >>Thanks Mike
    > >>It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and
    > >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
    > >>have to go above him.
    > >>I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
    > >>this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all
    > >>levels–reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
    > >>into oblivion and disrepute,
    > >>Thanks,
    > >>mike

  10. Jimchip Says:

  11. Jimchip Says:

    1067194064.txt E&E paper. Applies to Sec. 5 (S&B). “Baddies” at E&E. Repeated in Sec. 3.2 (also, Mann cc’s self)

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
    Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:44 -0500

    Dear All,
    This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
    Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that
    “Energy and Environment” is being run by the baddies–only a shill for industry would have
    republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to “Climate Research” without
    even editing it. Now apparently they’re at it again…
    My suggested response is:
    1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called “journal” which is already known to
    have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we
    know has been asked to “review” this so-called paper
    2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by
    numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
    Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual
    suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has
    any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for
    the stunt that it is..
    Thanks for your help,

    two people have a forthcoming ‘Energy & Environment’ paper that’s being unveiled tomoro
    (monday) that — in the words of one Cato / Marshall/ CEI type — “will claim that Mann
    arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for
    missing values that dramatically affected his results.
    When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
    substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th
    Personally, I’d offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann’s
    methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.
    Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin
    skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
    the past….”

    The to list to a confidential email:
    To: Ray Bradley , “Malcolm Hughes” , Mike MacCracken , Steve Schneider , tom crowley , Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck ,, Michael Oppenheimer , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn ,, Ben Santer , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , “Lonnie G. Thompson” , Kevin Trenberth

  12. Jimchip Says:

    1067450707.txt Classic email re: McIntyre et al being blamed for Rutherford’s foul up, the excel speadsheet. Interesting that Mann ref’s Appel as a defense. Mike muddeis the waters elsewhere.

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: some info you’ll want to have…
    Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:05:07 -0500
    Cc: Gabi Hegerl , tom crowley ,, “raymond s.bradley” , Keith Briffa , Jonathan Overpeck , Stefan Rahmstorf , Steve Schneider ,, Gavin Schmidt ,

    Dear Thomas, Fortunat, Reto:
    You might have wanted to check w/ us first, but thanks anyway for responding to this. We’ve
    uncovered the error in what they did. They didn’t use the proxy data available on our
    public ftp site, which I had pointed them too–instead they used a spreadsheet file that my
    associate Scott Rutherford had prepared. In this file, most of the early series were
    overprinted at later years. This resulted in the reconstruction becoming increasingly
    spurious as one goes further back in time–the estimates prior to 1700 or so were rendered
    meaningless. There were also some other methodological errors that will be detailed
    shortly, but this was the big one.
    So they will probably have to retract the paper. You can find out more about this here, on
    journalist David Appell’s “blog”:
    We also have an op-ed piece going out this afternoon, further detailing the problems. Will
    send that as soon as its available. I’ve attached a few other relevant documents, and I’m
    forwarding another email I sent out to colleagues yesterday, just after I had discovered
    the main problem in what they’ve done…

  13. Jimchip Says:

    1067522573.txt The infamous Mann response to E&E McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771) to the “Guys”.

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: “raymond s.bradley” ,, “Phil Jones” , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn ,, Scott Rutherford
    Subject: Can you believe it???
    Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:02:53 -0500

    Guys, can you take a look at this.
    I think that everything I say here is true! But we’ve got to be sure.
    There are more technical things they did wrong that I want to add, but this is the critical
    bit–what do you think. Comments? Thanks…
    The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771) claims to
    be an “audit” of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) or “MBH98”. An audit
    involves a careful examination, using the same data and following the exact procedures used
    in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick (“MM”) have done no such
    thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Their analysis is notable
    only in how deeply they have misrepresented the data, methods, and results of MBH98.
    Journals that receive critical comments on a previously published papers always provide the
    authors who are being criticized an opportunity to review the study prior to publication,
    and offer them the chance to respond. This is standard operating procedure in any
    legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal. Mann and colleagues were never given this
    opportunity, nor were any other leading paleoclimate scientists that we’re familiar with.
    It is unfortunate that the profound errors, and false and misleading statements, and
    entirely spurious results provided in the McIntyre and McKitrick article were ever allowed
    to see the light of day by those would have been able to detect them. . We suspect the
    extremely checkered history of “Energy and Environment” has some role to play in this. The
    authors should retract their article immediately, and issue a public apology to the climate
    research community for the injustice they have done in publishing and promoting this deeply
    deceptive and flawed analysis.

    Not only were critical errors made in their analysis that render it thoroughly invalid, but
    there appear to have been several strikingly subjective decisions made to remove key
    indicators of the original MBH98 network prior to AD 1600, with a dramatic impact on the
    resulting reconstruction. It is precisely the over which the numerous indicators were
    removed (pre 1600 period) during which MM reconstruct anomalous warmth that is in sharp
    opposition to the cold conditions observed in MBH98 and nearly all other independent
    published estimates that we know of.

    While the authors dutifully cite the small inconsistency between the number of proxy
    indicators reported by, and found in the public data archive, of Mann et al back in time
    (there indeed appear to have been some minor typos in the MBH98 paper), it is odd that they
    do not cite the number of indicators in their putative version of the Mann et al network
    based on the independent collection of data, back time. The reader is literally left to do
    a huge amount of detective work, based on the tables in their pages 20-23, to determine
    just what data have been eliminated from the original Mann et al network. It seems odd,
    indeed, that their “substitutions” of other versions (or in some case, only apparent, and
    not actual, versions) of proxy data series for those in the original Mann et al (1998)
    network has the selective effect of deleting key proxy indicators that contribute dramatic
    cooling during the 16th century, when the MM reconstruction shows an anomalous warming
    departure from the Mann et al (1998) and all other published Northern Hemisphere
    temperature reconstructions.

    Here are some blatant examples:

    1) The authors (see their Figure 4) substitute a younger version of one of the Jacoby et al
    Northern Treeline series for the older version used by MBH98. This substitution has effect
    of removing a predictor of 15th century cooling [Incidentally, MM make much of the tendency
    for some tree ring series, such as this one, to show an apparent cooling over the past
    couple decades. Scientists with expertise in dendroclimatology know that this behavior
    represents a decrease in the sensitivity to temperature in recent decades that likely is
    related to conditions other than temperature which are limiting tree growth]

    2) The authors eliminate, without any justification, the entire dataset of 70 Western North
    American (WNA) tree-ring series available between 1400 and 1600 (this dataset is
    represented, by MBH98, in terms of a smaller number of representative Principal Component
    time series). The leading pattern of variance in this data set exhibits conditions from
    1400-1800 that are dramatically colder than the mid and late 20th century, and a very
    prominent cooling in the 15th century in particular. The authors eliminated this entire
    dataset because they claimed that the underlying data was not available in the public

    In point of fact, not only were the individual WNA data all available on the public ftp
    site provided by Mann and colleagues:
    [1], but they were also
    available, despite the claims to the contrary by MM, on NOAA’s website as well:

    The deletion of this critical (see Mann et al, 1999) dataset appears to one of the more
    important censorings performed by MM that allows them to achieve their spurious result of
    apparent 15th-16th century warmth.

    We have not, as yet, finished determining just how many important indicators were subtly
    censored from the MBH98 dataset by the various subjective substitutions described on pages
    20-23. However, given the relatively small number of indicators available between 1400-1500
    in the MBH98 network (22-24) and their elimination of some of the more critical ones, it
    would appear that this subjective censoring of data, alone, explains the spurious,
    misleading, and deceptive result achieved by the authors.

    Incidentally, MBH98 go to great depths to perform careful cross-validation experiments as a
    function of increasing sparseness of the candidate predictors back in time, to demonstrate
    statistically significant reconstructive skill even for their earlier (1400-1450)
    reconstruction interval. MM describe no cross-validation experiments. We wonder what the
    verification resolved variance is for their reconstruction based on their 1400-1450
    available network, during the independent latter 19th century period?

    There are numerous other serious problems that would render the MM analysis completely
    invalid, even in the absence of the serious issue raised above, and these are detailed

  14. Jimchip Says:

    1068239573.txt Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003

    From: Tim Osborn
    To: “Phil Jones” ,”Keith Briffa”
    Subject: Fwd: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
    Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:12:53 +0000

    >From: “Sonja.B-C”
    >Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:58:06 +0000
    >To: Steve McIntyre
    >Subject: Re: McIntyre-McKitrick and Mann-Bradley-Hughes
    >Cc:, Tim Osborn ,
    > Ross McKitrick
    >Priority: NORMAL
    >X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 5.1.1 Build (10)
    >Dear Steve
    >Please send your material for comment direct to Tim, Osborne.I
    >would like to publish the whole debate early next year, but
    >’respectful’ comments in the meantime can only help and the CRU people
    >seem genuinely interested and have integrity. I have never heard of
    >such bad behaviour here as appears to have been the case between
    >Sallie and Soon and the rest..the US adversarial system and too many
    >As you know ,the contact is Tim Osborn and I take
    >the liberty to forward this to him now. You seem to suggest that this
    >is welcome and are making make direct comments on his remarks to me
    >concerning your paper.
    >We shall get the printed proof, as a single electronic file today, and
    >shall look through it early next week. I am sure you do not want to see
    >your paper again? I think that adding anymore now (the exchanges
    >between you and Mann/Bradley and perhaps now Tim as well) is premature
    >and we shall wait until the next issue. Mann is said to be writing
    >something, but he has not yet contacted me, though I just hang up on
    >that journalist Appell who keeps on ringing. I told him that I will
    >deal only directly with Mann. What cheek, after threatening me with
    >litigation…Just keep me in the loop. Thanks.
    >PS .By the way The Economist has taken up a previous paper from E&E
    >(Castles and Henderson, the social science critique of teh emission
    >scenarios), and teh Australian and UK Treasuries have become involved.
    >I have not seen it yet. As you know, I have always argued that the real
    >’driver’ of teh IPCC deception, if that is the right word, has been on
    >teh social /technology forcing side, with focus of WG III.
    >In London I heard two days ago that the WTO might make ratification of
    >Kyoto conditional for something Russia wants. The source was speaker
    >from the Deutsche Bank, a Justin Mundy, former advisor to the EU
    >Commission on EU-Russia coordination and once senior advisor to the
    >European Centre for Nature Conservation, he also worked for the World
    >On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 09:50:33 -0500
    >Steve McIntyre wrote:
    > > Dear Sonja,
    > >
    > > > > The interesting thing about their preliminary response, however, is
    > that it
    > > > > indicates that the difference in results might be fully explained by a
    > > > > simple error in not using many of the early tree-ring data. If
    > this is
    > > > > confirmed by their fuller response, then, even though there may be
    > some
    > > > > problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al., it implies that
    > these
    > > > > problems do not actually make a lot of difference to the results –
    > the main
    > > > > difference comes from omitting the early tree-ring data. A paper that
    > > > > identifies some problems with the proxy data used by Mann et al. would
    > > > > still be interesting, but if these problems made very little
    > difference to
    > > > > the results obtained, then it would be of rather minor importance.
    > > >
    > > > (1) IMHO the data issues rise above “some problems”. When you’re
    > doing a prospectus, audit or engineering-level feasibility study, there
    > is a concerted effort to eliminate every error. I have never seen such
    > sloppy data as MBH98. Perhaps from my business experience, I am used to
    > a more demanding approach to data integrity than the above comment
    > suggests about academic studies. Even the MBH response criticizes us for
    > failing to use obsolete data. How silly is that. Bradley has also said
    > that an “audit” should use original data and should not verify against
    > source data and says that I should know better. I think that my
    > experience with audits and engineering studies is more substantial than
    > Bradley’s and this is an extraordinarily silly thing for him to
    > say. After the fact, one of the key mis-steps in the Bre-X fraud was
    > the engineering report in which ore reserves were calculated using false
    > data supplied to the consulting engineers by Bre-X, without any
    > verification being carried out by the engineers.
    > > > (2) There was not a “simple error” of simply not using many of the
    > early tree-ring data. The early tree-ring data in question are principal
    > components of North American tree ring sites and of Stahle/SWM (also
    > North American) tree ring sites . MBH98 states that they used
    > conventional principal components methods for temperature. They do not
    > explicitly say that they used conventional principal components methods
    > for tree ring regions, but, in the absence of disclosure otherwise, this
    > is certainly the most reasonable interpretation of the public disclosure
    > (leaving aside Mann’s refusal to provide clarification in response to our
    > inquiries on methods.) A “conventional” principal component calculation
    > requires that there be no missing data. Accordingly this indicator became
    > unavailable in the earlier years using conventional principal component
    > calculations – it was not “left out”. MBH now disclose for the very
    > first time that they used a “stepwise principal components approach”,
    > although this is nowhere disclosed in MBH98 or in the SI thereto. They
    > have still not disclosed the rosters of principal components involved. If
    > this method is material to their results, as they now state, then it was
    > a material omission in their prior disclosure. It seems like a very
    > strange rebuttal for MBH to say: you’re at fault because we made a
    > material non-disclosure on methodology in our papers. If I were in MBH’s
    > shoes, I would be embarrassed at this non-disclosure and mitigating the
    > situation by making full disclosure now. . When you do a prospectus, you
    > have to sign an affidavit that there are no material omissions. I have
    > approached disclosure questions on the basis that prospectus-level
    > disclosure is the minimum level of public disclosure in this matter,
    > assuming that this level of disclosure would be exceeded.
    > >
    > > (3) I’ve redone calculations with a re-calculated US PC1 in and get
    > results similar to those in E&E, rather than the MBH response. This is
    > not a guarantee that I have fully replicated still undisclosed MBH
    > methodology. However, MBH disclosure of their methodology is very
    > inadequate and without full disclosure by MBH of their methods, it is
    > possible to be somewhat at cross-purposes. This defective disclosure is
    > entirely their responsibility. It should be remedied immediately through
    > FTP disclosure of their computer programs and full description of their
    > methodology.
    > >
    > > [snip]
    > >
    > > >
    > > > > >>It is quite obvious that if the opinion of these three people
    > from the
    > > > > >>UK University of East Anglia concerning publication of teh M&M paper
    > > > > >>had been sought and taken, there would not have been no publication.
    > > > >
    > > > > Then I suggest you read our commentary again, which does not state
    > this at all.
    > >
    > >
    > > Part 2 has been drafted and I would be delighted to obtain comments on
    > it from UEA/CRU. Indeed, I think that it would be very constructive,
    > since Part 2 is significantly more hard-edged than Part 1. Because we
    > have stated that we would post up a reply to the MBH response, we would
    > have to disclose something on our websites, but I’d be prepared to deal
    > with this. Intuitively, full, true and plain disclosure would be to state
    > that we have prepared a reply and submitted it to UEA/CRU for
    > comments. I think that the many data errors will be self-evident to
    > UEA/CRU; we have organized our materials to show this, as will be the
    > material non-disclosures on methodology by MBH. However, if they are
    > prepared to comment, this would have to be agreed on very quickly as we
    > are very close to finalizing our repy.
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > > Steve
    >Dr.Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

  15. Jimchip Says:

    1077200902.txt GRL Feb 04 peer-review editor complaints

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Ben Santer
    Subject: Pete Mayes
    Date: Thu Feb 19 09:28:22 2004


    Every now and then – generally around an England game (probably now as we’ve just
    drawn with Portugal) or lamenting the fall of Liverpool, I get emails and sometimes phone
    calls from Pete Mayes !! Pete wants to get back into climate change and do some
    comparisons between real world data and some models. It is a pity he wasn’t this keen,
    when he first went to the US !
    Anyway I suggested he contact you. He has but he’s not got a reply. I guess you’re
    and/or don’t know how to reply. I’m sure he doesn’t know what he really wants. I gave him
    some references etc to look over and your name/email – so SORRY !!!!
    I guess I’ll see you just after Easter. Will you be here for the HC meeting as well
    as IDAG?
    It will be good to see Tom in Oxford – he should liven up the IDAG discussions.
    Hope all is well with you and Nick !
    PS I see Steve has replied to MM re the MBH review. This nearly got out of hand – it still
    could. Appalling paper in GRL in the Feb04 issue – Mike Mann’s written a response.
    Clearly another case of the GRL editor’s having no idea of the science. Who in their right
    mind would accept that for publication. Nowhere on the CRU site does it say that HadCRUT2v
    is the IPCC data. According to the HC the IPCC data is the OA version HadCRUT – no v, no
    The data is on the HC web site. There is a link to it from the CRU site. When getting data
    from the CRU site we ask people to refer to some of the papers and to use the dataset
    names. Soon et al didn’t do either. Paper attached as I have it.
    Just had a paper accepted by Reviews of Geophysics with Mike Mann on the climate of
    the last 2k years. Expecting flak for this, but it had 4 very positive reviews.
    For some inane reason I put my name forward to do the chapter on atmospheric obs. for
    AR4. Hope I don’t get picked.

  16. Jimchip Says:

    1077829152.txt Mann reviewing paper “pure rubbish” “So review easy to do”

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Crap Papers
    Date: Thu Feb 26 15:59:12 2004


    Just agreed to review a paper for GRL – it is absolute rubbish. It is having a go at
    CRU temperature data – not the latest vesion, but the one you used in MBH98 !! We added
    lots of data in for the region this person says has Urban Warming ! So easy review to do.
    Sent Ben the Soon et al. paper and he wonders who reviews these sorts of things. Says
    GRL hasn’t a clue with editors or reviewers. By chance they seem to have got the right
    person with the one just received.
    Can I ask you something in CONFIDENCE – don’t email around, especially not to
    Keith and Tim here. Have you reviewed any papers recently for Science that say that
    MBH98 and MJ03 have underestimated variability in the millennial record – from models
    or from some low-freq proxy data. Just a yes or no will do. Tim is reviewing them – I
    to make sure he takes my comments on board, but he wants to be squeaky clean with
    discussing them with others. So forget this email when you reply.

  17. Jimchip Says:

    1092418712.txt Reviewing McKitrick and Michaels. Comrie asks Phil for reviewer suggestions…bad idea, objectivity-wise.

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: IJOC040512 review
    Date: Fri Aug 13 13:38:32 2004

    I’d rather you didn’t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew
    email that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the
    paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.
    Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.
    At 08:11 13/08/2004 -0400, you wrote:

    Thanks a bunch Phil,
    Along lines as my other email, would it be (?) for me to forward this to the chair of
    our commitee confidentially, and for his internal purposes only, to help bolster the
    case against MM??
    let me know…
    At 03:43 AM 8/13/2004, Phil Jones wrote:

    The paper ! Now to find my review. I did suggest to Andrew to find 3 reviewers.

    From: “Andrew Comrie”
    To: “‘f028′”
    Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review
    Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 01:29:44 -0700
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024
    Importance: Normal
    X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at
    X-UEA-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
    X-UEA-MailScanner: Found to be clean
    X-UEA-MailScanner-SpamScore: ssss
    Dear Phil,
    IJOC040512 “A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of Surface Air
    Temperature Trends”
    Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels
    Target review date: July 5, 2004
    Following from our email, many thanks for agreeing to review the paper above that has
    been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology for consideration. I have
    attached the manuscript, and the information for reviewers is provided below. Please let
    me know that you receieved the file.
    In the interests of expediting the review process, I encourage you to email your review
    as soon as is convenient. I would like to hear from you by the target date above, or as
    soon after as possible.
    Referee’s names are kept anonymous. When composing your review, please keep your
    “Comments to the Author” separate from your confidential comments to the editor. With
    your comments to me, please be sure to provide one of these summary recommendations:
    1. Accept without further revision.
    2. Accept subject to minor revisions (changes to the text only, or simple follow-on
    3. Accept subject to major revisions (major text changes, recalculations or new
    4. Reject.
    In the case of minor revisions, the revised manuscript will be checked only by the
    editor. For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent to you again for a
    second review. It will also be useful if you will grade the contribution overall on the
    following scale:
    A. Very good (a continuing and useful advance in an area of importance).
    B. Good (satisfactory and of sufficient importance to merit publication).
    C. Adequate (of marginal interest).
    D. Poor (not significant enough to merit publication).
    E. Very poor (trivial, or incorrect, or of no interest, or not new, etc.).
    For your review, please also comment if any of the following points are not satisfactory
    or suitable: topic appropriate for the journal, correctness of the title, reduction in
    paper length, quality and quantity of illustrations, units, use of English, and key
    Your contribution to the review process is essential and greatly valued.
    Andrew Comrie
    Dr. Andrew C. Comrie
    Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
    Dept. of Geography and Regional Development
    University of Arizona
    409 Harvill Building
    Tucson, AZ 85721-0076, USA
    Tel: (+1) (520) 621 1585
    Fax: (+1) (520) 621 2889
    Web: [1]
    Regional Editor for the Americas, International Journal of Climatology
    —–Original Message—–
    From: f028 [[3]] On Behalf Of f028
    Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:04 AM
    To: Andrew Comrie
    Subject: RE: IJOC040512 review
    I can do this. I am in France this week but back in the UK all June.
    So send and it will be waiting my return.
    >===== Original Message From “Andrew Comrie”
    >Dear Prof. Jones,
    >IJOC040512 “A Socioeconomic Fingerprint on the Spatial Distribution of
    >Surface Air Temperature Trends”
    >Authors: RR McKitrick & PJ Michaels
    >Target review date: July 5, 2004
    >I know you are very busy, but do you have the time to review the above
    >manuscript for the International Journal of Climatology? If yes, can
    >you complete the review within about five to six weeks, say by the
    >target review date listed above? I will send the manuscript
    >If no, can you recommend someone who you think might be a good choice to
    >review this paper?
    >Thanks for considering my request.
    >Best wishes,
    >Andrew Comrie
    >Dr. Andrew C. Comrie

  18. Jimchip Says:

    1089318616.txt looks like reviwer confidentiality violation to me

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

    Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last
    2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
    for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
    to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
    I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also
    that you have the pdf.
    The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
    to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
    for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde
    obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
    out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
    The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
    losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see
    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
    For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
    shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author
    is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
    It isn’t peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
    the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn’t
    happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn’t) and doing
    this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40’s trends in the lower atmosphere
    are all physically consistent where NCEP’s are not – over eastern US.

    I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.

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: