date: Fri Apr 22 09:29:45 2005 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Mann vs. McIntyre to: David Appell David, I wouldn't worry about the criticism. It is groundless in my view. It is just people making mischief. The MM paper in GRL is just wrong. The point you can make is that there are loads of other papers giving similar results to MBH. None of these has a warm 15th century. Most give cooler 15th centuries than MBH - in fact MM is closest to MBH in their revised curve. I know this wasn't part of their GRL paper, but they had one in CR that said revisions to MBH gives a warm 15th century. MM is the outlier in all this, not MBH. In a soccer analogy in the UK, we have the premier league with teams like Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal in it. MBH is in this premier league. MM is Sunday morning soccer played by amateurs. I'm sure you have similar baseball analogies. Cheers Phil At 21:12 21/04/2005, you wrote: Dr. Jones, Hi. Do you have any thoughts on the Michael Mann vs. Stephen McIntyre controversy? I wrote a profile of Michael Mann for the March 2005 issue of Scientific American. Some readers have criticized me, based mostly on a 2/14 article in the Wall Street Journal, for failing to pay heed to the work of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, which was published in Geophysical Research Letters in February 2005. I'm wondering if you put much faith in the McIntyre & McKitrick paper, and how you think it stacks up to the work of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes.... Any thoughts you'd care to share? I would need your response by Monday, April 25th.... Thanks, David -- David Appell, freelance science journalist e: appell@nasw.org p: 603-659-1892 w: [1]http://www.nasw.org/users/appell m: 26H Piscassic St. #208, Newmarket, NH 03857 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------