Section 5.4 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. 

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS 

4.  To what extent is your attitude to reviewing conditioned by the extent that a paper will set back the case for anthropogenic global warming and the political action that may be needed to mitigate it?

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Section 5.4 Responses”

  1. Jimchip Says:

    1018539404 4/11/02 Edward Cook to Mann and Hughes, quoted by Mann: (see also 3.2)

    Given the incendiary and sometimes quite rude emails that came out at the time when ECS and Briffa/Osborn were published, I could also go into the whole complaint about how the review process at Science was “flawed”. I will only say that this is a very dangerous game to get into and complaints of this kind can easily cut both ways. I will submit an appropriately edited and condensed version of this reply to Science. Regards, Ed”

    1057944829 18 Jun 2003 (Osborn to Crowley): The whole chain mail should be read.

    Quoted From: “Chris de Freitas” To: Inter-Research Science Publisher “I have spent a considerable amount of my time on this matter and had my integrity attacked in the process. I want to emphasize that the people leading this attack are hardly impartial observers. Mike himself refers to “politics” and political incitement involved. Both Hulme and Goodess are from the Climate Research Unit of UEA that is not particularly well known for impartial views on the climate change debate. The CRU has a large stake in climate change research funding as I understand it pays the salaries of most of its staff. I understand too the journalist David Appell was leaked information to fuel a public attack. I do not know the source Mike Hulme refers to the number of papers I have processed for CR that “have been authored by scientists who are well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate.” How many can he say he has processed? I suspect the answer is nil…Mike Hulme quite clearly has an axe or two to grind, and, it seems, a political agenda. But attacks on me of this sort challenge my professional integrity, not only as a CR editor, but also as an academic and scientist…Am I to trundle all this out over and over again because of criticism from a lobbyist scientists who are, paraphrasing Hulme, “well known for their support for the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate The criticisms of Soon and Baliunas (2003) CR article raised by Mike Hume in his 16 June 2003 email to you was not raised by the any of the four referees I used (but is curiously similar to points raided by David Appell!). Keep in mind that referees used were selected in consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected based on the guidance I received. All are reputable paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans and Clare have referred to as “the other side” or what Hulme refers to as people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate.” One of the five referees turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive”

    Phil Jones quoted in same email:

    “Dear All, Keith and I have discussed the email below. I don’t want to start a discussion of it and I don’t want you sending it around to anyone else, but it serves as a warning as to where the debate might go should the EOS piece come out. I think it might help Tom (W) if you are still going to write a direct response to CR. Some of de Freitas’ views are interesting/novel/off the wall to say the least. I am glad that he doesn’t consider himself a paleoclimatologist – the statement about the LIA having the lowest temperatures since the LGM. The paleo people he’s talked to didn’t seem to mention the YD, 8.2K or the 4.2/3K events – only the Holocene Optimum. There are also some snipes at CRU and our funding, but we’re ignoring these here. Also Mike comes in for some stick, so stay cool Mike – you’re a married man now ! So let’s keep this amongst ourselves . I have learned one thing. This is that the reviewer who said they were too busy was Ray. I have been saying this to loads of papers recently (something Tom(w) can vouch for). It is clear from the differences between CR and the ERE piece that the other 4 reviewers did not say much, so a negative review was likely to be partly ignored, and the article would still have come out. I say this as this might come out if things get nasty. De Freitas will not say to Hans von Storch or to Clare Goodess who the 4 reviewers were. I believe his paleoclimatologist is likely to be Anthony Fowler, who does dendro at Auckland. Cheers Phil”

    1060002347 04 Aug 2003 (Mann to Salinger) A medium chain mail regarding Soon and Baliunas

    “There was indeed a lot of activity last week. Hans Von Storch’s resignation as chief editor of CR, which I think took a lot of guts, couldn’t have come at a better time. It was on the night before before the notorious “James Inhofe”, Chair of the Senate “Environment and Public Works Committee” attempted to provide a public stage for Willie Soon and David Legates to peddle their garbage (the Soon & Baliunas junk of course, but also the usual myths about the satellite record, 1940s-1970s cooling, “co2 is good for us” and “but water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas!”). Fortunately, these two are clowns, neither remotely as sharp as Lindzen or as slick as Michaels, and it wasn’t too difficult to deal with them. Suffice it to say, the event did *not* go the way Inhofe and the republicans had hoped. The democrats, conveniently, had received word of Hans’ resignation, but the republicans and Soon/Legates had not. So when, quite fittingly, Jim Jeffords (you may remember–he’s the U.S. senator who was in the news a couple years ago for tilting the balance of power back to the democrats when he left the republican party in protest) hit them with this news at the hearing, they were caught completely off guard. The “Wall Street Journal” article you cited was icing on the cake. Inhofe, who rails against the liberal media, will have a difficult time doing so against the WSJ! Also of interest to you (attached) might be the op-ed that Ray Bradley, Phil, and I have written and submitted to the “Seattle News Tribune” in response to an op-ed by Baliunas (also attached) that some industry group has been sending around to various papers over the last week. Only two (Providence Journal and Seattle NT) have thusfar bitten… There is a rumour that Harvard may have had enough w/ their name being dragged through the mud by the activities of Baliunas and Soon, and that “something is up”. Baliunas and Soon, as alluded to in the WSJ article, are now no longer talking to the media. Will keep you posted on that… mike” 5.4 What is the justification for an apparent attempt to exclude contrary views from the IPCC process?

    Pre-critism of Science paper: 0924030302, 13 Apr 1999 (Mann to Briffa/Osborn):

    “Also, correct “global temperature and non-temperature proxies” in your description of our series to “global climate proxies” which is a more honest way of describing them given our methodological approach, and make sure it is clear to the readers which series are extratropical and warm season, and which are full northern hemisphere/annual mean estimates (ours). Such discussion will, again, figure prominently in IPCC, and it would be a shame for Science to be publishing something that is misleading in that respect. In part, it was this issue that forced the publication of a followup to Phil’s perspective by me, Ray, Malcolm, and Phil a year ago, and it would be nice to avoid that scenario this time around…”

  2. Jimchip Says:

    See also 5.5 1128000000 29 Sep 2005 Osborn to Jones:

  3. Jimchip Says:

    1141930111 09 Mar 2006 Jones to Eystein:

    What this sad crowd (nice words – I’ll use the phrase again) don’t
    realise is that the satellite data now agree with the surface. This is
    said in Ch 3 and will come home more forcefully once the CCSP
    report on vertical temperature trends comes out. This should be
    April or May according to Tom Karl who is overseeing it all. I say
    should as it apparently has to be approved by the White House!
    Peck will know why this is and the expertise of the people doing
    the approval!

    I can say for certain (100% – not any probable word that IPCC would use) is that the surface temperature data are correct.

    McIntyre is determined and the blog does influence people, unfortuately
    the media. As you say as issues are partially closed, they will move on
    to others.

  4. jimchip Says:

    1179416790.txt
    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: Re: More Rubbish
    Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
    Reply-to: mann@psu.edu

    yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!

    New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
    are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
    including the HS!

    Heard anything back from IUGG yet? I thought Mike’s email was helpful,
    if that doesn’t do the trick I don’t know what will,

  5. jimchip Says:

    1177163150.txt Mann the Jailhouse Lawyer 🙂

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

    Subject: Re: FYI
    Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:45:50 -0400
    Reply-to: mann@psu.edu
    Cc: trenbert@ucar.edu, Ben Santer

    So they are simply hoping to blow this up to something that looks like a
    legitimate controversy. The last thing you want to do is help them by
    feeding the fire. Best thing is to ignore them completely. They no
    longer have their friends in power here in the U.S., and the media has
    become entirely unsympathetic to the rants of the contrarians at least
    in the U.S.–the Wall Street Journal editorial page are about the only
    place they can broadcast their disinformation. So in other words, for
    contrarians the environment appears to have become very unfavorable for
    development. I would advise Wang the same way. Keenan may or may not be
    bluffing, but if he tries this I believe that British law would make it
    easy for Wang to win a defamation suit against him (the burden is much
    tougher in the states)

  6. Jimchip Says:

    Dear fellow Eos co-authors,
    Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,
    Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members of the
    U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.
    Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferred title
    and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.
    Thanks in advance,
    Michael M and Michael O

    ______________________________________________________________
    Professor Michael E. Mann

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@virginia.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
    Subject: letter to Senate
    Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:32:45 -0400

  7. Jimchip Says:

    1058898765.txt oops see above

  8. Jimchip Says:

    1058906971.txt Peck a little concerned.

    Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.

    My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.

    I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this –
    e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climate change.

    Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,
    then…

    I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to do
    it.

    What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interest org or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something for
    scientists to do as individuals?

    Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out real
    thought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.

    Cheers, Peck

    From: Jonathan Overpeck
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: letter to Senate
    Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700
    Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , mann@virginia.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley

  9. Jimchip Says:

    1059005592.txt Wigley, Politics, Soon and Baliunas. See 5 for more general S&B issues leading up to these 5.3 issues. Wagons are circled and trying to get more wagons.

    Here are some thoughts about the Soon issue, partly arising from talking
    to Ben.

    What is worrying is the way this BS paper has been hyped by various
    groups. The publicity has meant that the work has entered the
    conciousness of people in Congress, and is given prominence in some
    publications emanating from that sector. The work appears to have the
    imprimateur of Harvard, which gives it added credibility.

    So, what can we as a community do about this? My concerns are two-fold,
    and I think these echo all of our concerns. The first is the fact that
    the papers are simply bad science and the conclusions are incorrect. The
    second is that the work is being used quite openly for political purposes.

    As scientists, even though we are aware of the second issue, we need to
    concentrate on exposing the scientific flaws. We also need to do this in
    as authoritative a way as possible. I do not think it is enough to speak
    as individuals or even as a group of recognized experts. Even as a
    group, we will not be seen as having the ‘power’ of the Harvard stamp of
    approval.

    What I think is necessary is to have the expressed support of both AGU
    and AMS. It would also be useful to have Harvard disassociate themselves
    from the work. Most importantly, however, we need the NAS to come into
    the picture. With these 4 institutions, together with us (and others) as
    experts, pointing out clearly that the work is scientific rubbish, we
    can certainly win this battle.

    I suggest that we try to get NAS to set up a committee to (best option)
    assess the science in the two BS papers, or (less good, but still
    potentially very useful) assess the general issue of the paleo record
    for global- or hemispheric-scale temperature changes over the past 1000
    years. The second option seems more likely to be acceptable to NAS. This
    is arguably an issue of similar importance to the issue of climate
    sensitivity uncertainties which NAS reviewed earlier this year (report
    still in preparation).

    I am not sure how to fold AGU and AMS into this — ideas are welcome.
    Similarly, perhaps some of you know some influential Harvard types
    better than I do and can make some suggestions here.

    The only way to counter this crap is to use the biggest guns we can
    muster. The Administration and Congress still seem to respect the NAS
    (even above IPCC) as a final authority, so I think we should actively
    pursue this path.

    Best wishes,
    Tom.

    Mike O. is quoted:

    Michael Oppenheimer wrote:
    > Dear All:
    >
    > Since several of you are uncomfortable, it makes good sense to step back and
    > think about a more considered approach. My view is that scientists are fully
    > justified in taking the initiative to explain their own work and its relevance in
    > the policy arena. If they don’t, others with less scruples will be heard
    > instead. But each of us needs to decide his or her own comfort zone.
    >
    > In this case, the AGU press release provides suitable context, so it may be that
    > neither a separate letter nor another AGU statement would add much at this time.
    > But this episode is unlikely to be the last case where clarity from individuals
    > or groups of scientists will be important.
    >
    > Michael

    “The Community”, including Steve Schneider:
    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Michael Oppenheimer
    Subject: Re: letter to Senate
    Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:13:12 -0600
    Cc: Jonathan Overpeck , “Michael E. Mann” , Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Ben Santer , Steve Schneider

  10. Jimchip Says:

    https://crutapeletters.wordpress.com/section-1-responses/section-1-2-response/#comment-214

  11. Jimchip Says:

    1067532918.txt See topics in 5.3 re MM 2003 but Bradley sums up pro vs. con Global Warming. It’s got politics, McCain-Leiberman, and Ray saying “I suggest a way out of this mess” 🙂

    From: “raymond s. bradley”
    To: Tim Osborn , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: One way out….
    Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:55:18 -0500
    Cc: mann@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu

    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 problem. See:
    file:///c:/eudora/attach/nh_temp_rec.jpg

    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….
    Ray

  12. Jimchip Says:

    1067542015.txt Discussion of techniques, cherry picking, politics. Applies to Sec. 6 also. Repeated in 3.2 for techniques.

    Personally, I don’t want the “CRU Boys” meddling in US politics but they did.

    “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.”

    Full email:

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Keith Briffa , “raymond s. bradley” , Tim Osborn , p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: One way out….
    Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:26:55 -0500
    Cc: mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu

    Hi Keith,
    sorry–yes, I think the Nature idea would be great. Definitely give it a try!
    thanks,
    mike
    At 06:53 PM 10/30/2003 +0000, Keith Briffa wrote:

    Things obviously moving over there – this result looks good.Just thought I’d send this
    first bit (up to dotted line) of edited version , to illustrate possible toning down?
    Have to go now and feed daughter . Will wait til see your joint version first thing
    tomorrow – rest assured, that am entirely with you on this and still appalled by the MM
    stuff – but keeping your distance and calm stance is still urged.
    all the best to all
    any objections if I talk to Nature tomorrow?
    Keith
    At 01:31 PM 10/30/03 -0500, Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Guys,
    So the verification RE for the “censored” NH mean reconstruction? -6.64
    The verification RE for the original MBH98 NH mean reconstruction: 0.42
    I think the case is really strong now!
    What if were to eliminate the discussion of all the other technical details (and just
    say they exist), and state more nicely that these series were effectively censored by
    their substitutions, and that by removing those series which they censored, I get a
    similar result, with a dismal RE.
    And most people would keep the RE of 0.42 over the RE of -6, right? So this would make
    that point. I think we also need to say something about the process, etc. (the intro was
    based on something that Malcolm/Ray had originally crafted).
    Thoughts, comments? Thanks,
    mike
    I’m thinking of a note saying basically this, and attaching this figure.
    Could everybody sign on to something like this?
    Thanks for all your help,
    mike
    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.
    Keith
    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
    problem. See:
    [1]file:///c:/eudora/attach/nh_temp_rec.jpg
    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….
    Ray

  13. Jimchip Says:

    1067596623.txt POLITICS.

    “Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM.”

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: f055 , “p.jones” , “raymond s. bradley” , f055 , Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn
    Subject: RE: CLIMLIST
    Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:37:03 -0500
    Cc: mhughes

    Thanks very much Tim,
    I was hoping that the revisions would ally concerns people had.
    I’ll look forward to your comments on this latest draft. I agree w/ Malcolm on the need to
    be careful w/ the wording in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a bit of relic of
    a much earlier draft, and maybe we need to rethink it a bit. Takinig the high road is
    probably very important here. If *others* want to say that their actions represent
    scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets
    let *them* make these charges for us!
    Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader
    case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first par. particular.
    I took the liberty of forwarding the previous draft to a handfull of our closet colleagues,
    just so they would have a sense of approximately what we’ll be releasing later today–i.e.,
    a heads up as to
    how MM achieved their result…
    look forward to us finalizing something a bit later–I still think we need to get this out
    ASAP…
    mike
    SAt 03:01 AM 10/31/2003 +0000, f055 wrote:

    Dear all,
    I’ve just finished preparing a detailed response offline, only to log on to
    send it to you all and find new versions from Mike plus more comments
    and information. Well, I don’t have time to change my message now, so
    will paste it below this message. But bear in mind that the new draft may
    well have allayed many of my concerns – in particular, a quick glance
    shows the figure to be much more convincing than the one Mike circulated
    earlier, indeed it seems to be utterly convincing! I’ll reply again on
    Friday
    morning once I’ve had time to read the new draft. In the meantime, here is
    my message as promised.
    ************************************************************
    Dear MBH (cc to CRU),
    The number of emails has been rather overwhelming on this issue and
    I’m struggling to catch up with them! But I will attempt to catch up with a
    few things here…
    (1) The single worst thing about the whole M&M saga is not that they did
    their study, not that they did things wrong (deliberately or by accident), but
    that neither they nor the journal took the necessary step of investigating
    whether the difference between their results and yours could be explained
    simply by some error or set of errors in their use of the data or in their
    implementation of your method. If it turns out, as looks likely from Mike’s
    investigation of this, that their results are erroneous, then they and the
    journal will have wasted countless person-hours of time and caused
    much damage in the climate policy arena.
    (2) Given that this is the single worst thing about the saga, we must not go
    and do exactly the same in rushing out a response to their paper. If some
    claims in the response turned out to be wrong, based on assumptions
    about what M&M did or assumptions about how M&M’s assumptions
    affect the results, then it would end up with a number of iterations of claim
    and counter claim. Ultimately the issue might be settled, but by then the
    waters could be so muddied that it didn’t matter.
    (3) Not only do I advise against an overly rushed response, but I’m also
    wondering whether it really ought to be only from MBH, for three reasons.
    (i) It is your paper/results that are being attacked.
    (ii) It is difficult to endorse everything that Mike has put in the draft
    response because I don’t know 100% of the details of MBH and the MBH
    data. Sure, I can endorse some things, but others I wouldn’t know. Sure,
    I accept Mike’s explanation because he’s looked at this stuff for 4 days
    and I believe he’ll have got it right – but that’s different to an independent
    check. That must come from Ray or Malcolm if possible.
    (iii) If it does come to any independent assessment of who’s right and
    who’s wrong, then it would be difficult for us to be involved if we had
    already signed up to what some might claim to be a knee-jerk reaction to
    the M&M paper. If that happened, then you would want us to be free to get
    involved to make sure the process was fair and informed.
    This sounds like a cop out, but – like I say – I’m not sure about point (3) so
    feel free to try to convince me otherwise if you wish. Anyway Keith or Phil
    may be happy to sign up to a (quick or slow) response, despite my
    reservations above.
    I really advise a very careful reading of M&M and their supplementary
    website to ensure that everything in the response is clearly correct –
    precisely to avoid point (2). I’ve only just started to do this, but already
    have some questions about the response that Mike has drafted.
    (a) Mike, you say that many of the trees were eliminated in the data they
    used. Have you concluded this because they entered “NA” for “Not
    available” in their appendix table? If so, then are you sure that “NA”
    means they did not use any data, rather than simply that they didn’t
    replace your data with an alternative (and hence in fact continued to use
    what Scott had supplied to them)? Or perhaps “NA” means they couldn’t
    find the PC time series published (of course!), but in fact could find the
    raw tree-ring chronologies and did their own PCA of those? How would
    they know which raw chronologies to use? Or did you come to your
    conclusion by downloading their “corrected and updated” data matrix and
    comparing it with yours – I’ve not had time to do that, but even if I had and
    I
    found some differences, I wouldn’t know which was right seeing as I’ve
    not done any PCA of western US trees myself? My guess would be that
    they downloaded raw tree-ring chronologies (possibly the same ones you
    used) but then applied PCA only to the period when they all had full data –
    hence the lack of PCs in the early period (which you got round by doing
    PCA on the subset that had earlier data). But this is only a guess, and
    this is the type of thing that should be checked with them – surely they
    would respond if asked? – to avoid my point (2) above. And if my guess
    were right, then your wording of “eliminated this entire data set” would
    come in for criticism, even though in practise it might as well have been.
    (b) The mention of ftp sites and excel files is contradicted by their email
    record on their website, which shows no mention of excel files (they say
    an ASCII file was sent) and also no record that they knew the ftp address.
    This doesn’t matter really, since the reason for them using a corrupted
    data file is not relevant – the relevant thing is that it was corrupt and had
    you been involved in reviewing the paper then it could have been found
    prior to publication. But they will use the email record if the ftp sites and
    excel files are mentioned.
    (c) Not sure if you talk about peer-review in the latest version, but note
    that
    they acknowledge input from reviewers and Fred Singer’s email says he
    refereed it – so any statement implying it wasn’t reviewed will be met with
    an easy response from them.
    (d) Your quick-look reconstruction excluding many of the tree-ring data,
    and the verification RE you obtain, is interesting – but again, don’t rush
    into
    using these in any response. The time series of PC1 you sent is certainly
    different from your standard one – but on the other hand I’d hardly say you
    “get a similar result” to them, the time series look very different (see their
    fig 6d). So the dismal RE applies only to your calculation, not to their
    reconstruction. It may turn out that their verification RE is also very
    negative, but again we cannot assume this in case we’re wrong and they
    easily counter the criticism.
    (e) Claims of their motives for selective censoring or changing of data, or
    for the study as a whole, may well be true but are hard to prove. They
    would claim that their’s is an honest attempt at reproducing a key
    scientific result. If they made errors in what they did, then maybe they’re
    just completely out of their depth on this, rather than making deliberate
    errors for the purposes of achieving preferred results.
    (f) The recent tree-ring decline they refer to seems related to
    tree-ring-width not density. Regardless of width of density, this issue
    cannot simply be dismissed as a solved problem. Since they don’t make
    much of an issue out of it, best just to ignore it.
    (g) [I’m rambling now into an un-ordered list of things, so I’ll stop soon!]
    The various other problems relating to temperature data sets, detrended
    standard deviations, PCs of tree-ring subsets etc. sound likely errors –
    though I’ve got no way of providing the independent check that you asked
    for. But it is again a bit of a leap of faith to say that these *explain* the
    different results that they get. Certainly they throw doubt on the validity
    of
    their results, but without actually doing the same as them it’s not possible
    to say if they would have replicated your results if they hadn’t made these
    errors. After all, could the infilling of missing values have made much
    difference to the results obtained, something that they made a good deal
    of fuss about?
    (h) To say they “used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98” will
    also be an easy target for them, since they did use the data that was sent
    to them and seemed to have used approximately the method too (with
    some errors that you’ve identified). This reproduced your results to some
    extent (certainly not perfectly, but see Fig 6b and 6c). Then they went
    further to redo it with the “corrected and updated” data – but only after
    first
    doing approximately what they claimed they did (i.e. the audit).
    These comments relate to random versions of the draft response, so
    apologies if they don’t all seem relevant to the current draft. I don’t have
    these in front of me, here at home, so I’m doing this from memory of what
    I’ve read over the past few days. But nevertheless, the point is that a quick
    response would ultimately require making a number of assumptions
    about what they did and assumptions about whether this explains the
    differences or not – assumptions that might be later shot down (in part
    only, at most, but still sufficient to muddy the debate for most outsiders).
    A quick response ought to be limited to something like:
    ———————————————
    The recent paper by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; hereafter MM03) claims
    to be an “audit” of the analysis of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998;
    hereafter MBH98). MM03 are unable to reproduce the Northern
    Hemisphere temperature reconstruction of MBH98 when attempting to
    use the same proxy data and methods as MBH98, though they obtain
    something similar with clearly anomalous recent warming (their Figure
    6c). They then make many modifications to the proxy data set and repeat
    their analysis, and obtain a rather different result to MBH98.
    Unfortunately neither M&M nor the journal in which it was published took
    the necessary step of investigating whether the difference between their
    results and MBH98 could be explained simply by some error or set of
    errors in their use of the data or in their implementation of the MBH98
    method. This should have been an essential step to take in a case such
    as this where the difference in results is so large and important. Simple
    errors must first be ruled out prior to publication. Even if the authors had
    not undertaken this by presenting their results to the authors of MBH98,
    the journal should certainly have included them as referees of the
    manuscript.
    A preliminary investigation into the proxy data and implementation of the
    method has already identified a number of likely errors, which may turn
    out to be the cause of the different results. Rather than repeating M&M’s
    failure to follow good scientific practise, we are witholding further
    comments until we can – by collaboration with M&M if possible – be certain
    of exactly what changes to data and method were made by M&M, whether
    these changes can really explain the differences in the results, and
    eventually which (if any) of these changes can be justified as equally valid
    (given the various uncertainties that exist) and which are simply errors that
    invalidate their results.
    —————————————–
    Hope you find this all helpful, and despite my seemingly critical approach,
    take them in the spirit with which they are aimed – which is to obtain a
    strong and hard hitting rebuttal of bad science, but a rebuttal that cannot
    be buried by any minor innaccuracies or difficult-to-prove claims.
    Best regards
    Tim

  14. Jimchip Says:

    0901894140.txt SRES honchos

    From: mnoguer@meto.gov.uk
    To: scenarios@meto.gov.uk
    Subject: Scenarios – SRES description 2
    Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:09 +0000 (GMT)

    As promised here is the second part of the SRES description:

    ———-

    SRES WRITING TEAM
    ADDRESS LIST

    Dr. Joseph M. Alcamo
    Professor, Scientific Center for
    Environmental Systems Research
    University of Kassel, Germany

    Dr. Knut H. Alfsen
    Director, Center for International Climate and Environmental Protection (CICERO)
    University of Oslo, Norway

    Prof. Akhiro Amano
    Dean, School of Policy Studies
    Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan

    Dr. Dennis Anderson
    Professor, Oxford University
    Oxford, UK

    Dr. Zhou Dadi
    Energy Research Institute
    State Planning Commission
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Beijing, China

    Dr. Gerald R. Davis
    Group Planning
    Shell International Petroleum
    London, UK

    Dr. Bert de Vries
    National Institute for Public Health
    and Environmental Hygiene (RIVM)
    Bilthoven, the Netherlands

    Dr. Jae Edmonds
    Senior Research Scientist
    Pacific Northwest National
    Laboratory
    Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

    Mr. J/0rgen Fenhann
    Energy Systems Group and
    UNEP Collag. Ctr. on Energy
    and Environment
    Ris/0 National Laboratory
    Roskilde, Denmark

    Dr. Stuart R. Gaffin
    Atmosphere Program
    Environmental Defense Fund
    New York, NY, U.S.A.

    Dr. Henryk Gaj
    Polish Foundation for Energy
    Efficiency (FEWE)
    Warsaw, Poland

    Dr. Ken Gregory
    Centre for Business and the Environment
    Middlesex, UK

    Dr. Arnulf Gruebler
    Environmentally Compatible
    Energy Strategies
    International Institute for Applied
    Systems Analysis
    Laxenburg, Austria

    Mr. William Hare
    Greenpeace International
    Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Dr. Erik Haites
    Margaree Consultants, Inc.
    Toronto, ONT, Canada

    Dr. Tae-Yong Jung
    Korea Energy Economics Institute
    Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do, Korea

    Dr. Thomas Kram
    Project Head of ETSAP
    ECN Policy Studies
    Netherlands Energy Research
    Foundation
    Petten, the Netherlands

    Dr. Emilio Lebre La Rovere
    COPPE/UFRJ
    Universidade Federal do
    Rio de Janeiro
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Prof. Matthew Luhanga
    University of Dar es Salaam
    Dar es Salaam, United Republic
    of Tanzania
    Dr. Laurie Michaelis
    Environment Directorate
    OECD
    Paris, France

    Dr. Shunsuke Mori
    Department of Industrial Administration
    Faculty of Science and Engineering
    Science University of Tokyo
    Tokyo, Japan

    Dr. Tsuneyuki Morita
    Head of Global Warming Response Team
    National Institute for Environmental
    Studies
    Tsukuba, Japan

    Dr. Richard Moss
    Head of Technical Support Unit
    IPCC Working Group II
    Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

    Prof. Nebojsa Nakicenovic
    Project Leader
    Environmentally Compatible
    Energy Strategies
    International Institute for Applied
    Systems Analysis
    Laxenburg, Austria

    Dr. William Pepper
    ICF Kaiser
    Fairfax, VA, U.S.A.

    Mr. Hugh Martin Pitcher
    Senior Scientist, Global Change Group
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
    Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

    Ms. Lynn Price
    Energy Analysis Program
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

    Dr. Hans-Holger Rogner
    Section Head, Planning and Economic
    Studies Section
    International Atomic Energy Agency
    Vienna, Austria

    Dr. Priyadarshi Shukla
    Indian Institute of Technology
    Ahmedabad, India

    Mr. Alexei Sankovski
    ICF Kaiser
    Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

    Dr. Robert Swart
    Air Research Laboratory
    Policy Analysis and Scenarios
    RIVM
    Bilthoven, the Netherlands

    Prof. John P. Weyant
    Director
    Energy Modeling Forum
    Stanford University
    Stanford, CA, U.S.A.

    Dr. Ernst Worrell
    Energy Analysis Program
    Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

    /p/ecs/general/admin/ipcc-sr/corr/open process/naki-short.doc 06/26/98,
    11:34 AM

  15. Jimchip Says:

    0972499087.txt Phil to Ben. Violates reviewer anonymity, tells him the result. Paper to Mike, approved with minor revisions. Sounds cozy.

    Oh, Ben made a boo boo, too. First one ever, I bet.

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Ben Santer
    Subject: Re: Figures for revised version of paper
    Date: Wed Oct 25 14:38:07 2000

    Ben,
    I hope the surgery next week goes OK. Ruth and I are going away next
    week for a short break to Coldstream on the River Tweed. This was the
    holiday cottage Matthew had planned to go to for his honeymoon, but the
    fuel crisis around his wedding time precluded this. We were able to
    negotiate the cottage for a later date, as we could get a refund or
    claim on the insurance as a national emergency wasn’t declared. So on
    Nov 1 we will think about you !
    I’ve listed off the diagrams and will take the text when it comes, but
    I won’t be able to send you any comments until the week of Nov 6.
    Also just sent back comments to Mike Mann on the paper by Tom and
    you factoring out ENSO and Volcanoes. Felt like writing red ink all over
    it, but sent back a short publish suject to minor revision to Mike. This
    is the first time I’ve ever reviewed one of Tom’s or your papers !
    Copy of what I sent is attached. I forgot to sign it before sending it !

    Again hope all is well later next week !

    Cheers
    Phil

    At 06:37 PM 10/24/00 -0700, you wrote:
    >Dear All,
    >
    >Sorry that it has taken me so long to revise our paper. As I mentioned in a
    >previous email, I’ve had to repeat most of the calculations using an improved
    >estimate of the pre-eruption reference level temperature (Tref). I’ve also had
    >to look at the sensitivity of our results to uncertainties in Tref. I’d like to
    >thank Tom for prompting me to take a critical look at this issue – it’s an
    >important one. I’d also like to thank the rest of you for all the comments that
    >you’ve sent me. I hope I’ve addressed them adequately in the revised paper.
    >
    >Another major change is that, rather than giving results are based on a variety
    >of different filtering options — e.g., estimation of volcano parameters from
    >unfiltered data (too noisy) and highly smoothed data (13-term Gaussian filter
    >leads to underestimate of volcanically-induced cooling) — we now only give
    >results for our “best guess” filtering option,
    >a five-term binomial filter. We still discuss sensitivities to tau (the volcanic
    >signal decay time) and choice of ENSO index. Restricting attention to one
    >filtering option reduces the length of Tables, and hopefully improves the
    >clarity of the paper.
    >
    >I’ve rewritten the discussion of the iterative method, and we now make it clear
    >that although this approach is automated, its implementation still involves a
    >number of subjective decisions (filter choice, choice of averaging period for
    >estimating pre-eruption reference temperature, choice of tau, etc.) Many of the
    >changes made here attempt to address useful comments that I received from Tom.
    >
    >Lennart and Erich kindly provided me with the SLP data from the GSOP, GSO1 and
    >GSO2 integrations. Recall that we did not have this data previously, and so our
    >estimation of ENSO signals in GSO1 and GSO2 and of ENSO/volcano signals in GSOP
    >was based on simulated Nino 3.4 SSTs only. We’ve now also used the (simulated)
    >SOI to perform ENSO/volcano signal estimation.
    >
    >Section 5 (discussion of ECHAM4/OPYC results) has been completely rewritten,
    >and the ordering of individual subsections should now be more logical. We
    >discuss the simulated Pinatubo signal first, then the “ENSO component” of
    >simulated temperature trends, and finally residual trends after the removal of
    >volcano and ENSO effects.
    >
    >Today I’m sending you, as postscript attachments, the revised Figures for the
    >paper. To simplify things I’ve encoded the Figure number at the top of the
    >postscript file. I don’t want to overload your mailboxes, so I’m sending the
    >Figures in two separate mail messages. There should be 11 Figures in total.
    >Tomorrow I’ll send you the revised text of the paper and the Tables. Please let
    >me know if you have any problems printing these files. Note that all Figures
    >except Figure 7 are in color. Color is not essential for some of the Figures,
    >and in the next day or two I’ll prepare black-and-white versions of Figues 3, 5,
    >6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. But for now I thought you might find it easier working with
    >the color versions.
    >
    >I will be going in for surgery on November 1st, and am not sure how long it will
    >be until I get back to my office. I realize that it may not be feasible to
    >submit the paper before November 1st. But I’d really appreciate it if you could
    >send me comments before November 1st. These will keep me occupied while I’m
    >trying to get back on my feet!
    >
    >With best regards,
    >
    >Ben

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: