cc: mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:44:45 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: One way out.... to: Keith Briffa , "raymond s. bradley" , Tim Osborn , p.jones@uea.ac.uk Thanks Keith, I see the mutual collaboration as well underway now, w/ the Rutherford et al paper sort of representing our pilot effort. I much look forward to increasingly closer interaction among the group-that can only lead to good things, better science, a better understanding of the science--so this all sounds good to me. I think its appropriate to note that are still legitimate differences and uncertainties (as indicated in the spread of different empirical and model estimates shown in the various spaghetti plots we've all produced ). But that *this* is not one of them--I think all of the errors I've documented in MM are correct, in particular the very convenient censoring of ITRDB PC #1 and one of the oldest Jacoby tree-ring series of the network, and that's how they get that ridiculous result...But if you think some details aren't clear, I'd like to discuss them/try to clarify them. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about the facts. We can soften the tone. I'm pretty darned sure of the facts, having spent about 4 days pouring over this, looking at the data series, re-reading their descriptions, looking at their codes, etc...So I'd like to discuss any questions in what I've written, after you all have had time to read over the paper, my response, etc... thanks, 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 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml