cc: mann@virginia.edu date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:37:17 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: Fwd: Mann, Bradley and Hughes to: Tim Osborn , Michael Oppenheimer , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , , , Tom Wigley , tom crowley , Gabi Hegerl , Jonathan Overpeck , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu Dear Tim, Thanks for the message These guys, as Tom W has noted previously, seem to simply to simply want to try to make as big a stink as possible here. They didn't get the media attention they wanted (and got blasted in the one mainstream news article on this that appeared in USA Today a couple weeks back), and they haven't been taken seriously by the scientific community so I guess they're trying to generate any controversies they can. I would STRONGLY encourage you not to bother responding to any of their emails under any circumstancdes. History has proven consistently (talk to Phil!) that they'll simply try to take anything you say out of context, and turn your own words on you. This is what they did w/ the attempts on our part to help then in response to their initial inquiries, which they twist and distort in their comments below (we I only told them I wouldn't respond to further inquiries after the tone of their emails had become unacceptable, and their hostile intent clear--something this guy, as just about everything else, conveniently distorts... They've been making threats against NSF about supposed data policies and even against Ray, Tom Crowley, and others too, claiming that they have a right to all of our data and computer programs (the hubris!). Confidentially, NSF lawyers have found their threats baseless as well as obnoxious, and will be telling them formally that NSF policy in no way legally requires funded scientists to provided their data (let alone computer codes!) for public access, but scientists are *encouraged* to provide their data. NSF will be telling them to stop pestering them. I'm forwarding a formal email (based on numerous informal discussion w/ Dave Verardo) to NSF, which is confidential (!), that provides some more information.... As we all know, we had made all of our data available previously, so the accusations by these bozos are baselss, though we agree that we would have given more care to the completeness of documentation had we known a stunt like this was to be pulled by the contrarians.. Confidentially, we will be releasing a revised, more user-friendly version of the dataste (all of the data, including the CRU temperature dataset we used, which isn't available any longer) in concert w/ our published reply tto their paper, submitted to "Climatic Change"---will keep you posted on status to their paper. We can make a copy of the manuscript available to anyone who wants to see it, but we don't want to corrupt the potential reviewer pool prior to selection of reviewers, so we've resisted sending this out to colleagues yet. The data will also be available on Nature's supplementary information website (we're working w/ Nature on this right now). mike At 02:34 PM 12/8/2003 +0000, Tim Osborn wrote: Dear all, see the forwarded message. McIntyre is attempting to rope CRU into the ongoing fall-out from their paper in E&E, apparently because we "published" MBH's preliminary response by posting it on our website. Anyone got any comments, before I reply to say that I don't consider appearance on a web page as publication, and hence we aren't in a position to ask MBH for any data or programs. Cheers Tim From: "Steve McIntyre" To: "Tim Osborn" Cc: "Sonja.B-C" , "Ross McKitrick" Subject: Mann, Bradley and Hughes Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:57:06 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Dear Dr. Osborn, We regret that you declined our offer to submit our forthcoming paper to CRU/UEA for review, especially since you had been critical about Energy & Environment review policies. Our offer reflected our desire for the highest possible standard of public debate on these matters. UEA/CRU recently published an article by Mann, Bradley and Hughes ("MBH-r") responding to our paper in Energy & Environment, together with your own editorial comments. We are seeking the following supplementary information in connection with this article and commentary: 1) an identification of the 159 series, referred to in MBH-r; 2) a copy of the computer programs used to collate input data and generate the output data plotted in the Figure in MBH-r; 3) verification that these programs are the same as the corresponding programs used in MBH98 and, if not, a copy of the programs used to collate input data and generate output data for MBH98. We have requested this information from Professor Mann, but he has refused and has cut off further communication. In your capacity as publishers of his response article, we accordingly request the information from you directly. We have some other concerns with your own commentary on our article in Energy & Environment. We do not claim to show that 15th century temperatures were higher than 20th century temperatures. We only claim that application of MBH methods to corrected and updated data do not entitle MBH to claim 20th century uniqueness. We do not endorse the MBH98 methods and consequently did not put forward a reconstruction of our own. You also stated that we did not attempt to investigate the differences of results with MBH. This is untrue and indeed unfair. The email record shows clearly that we sought clarifications from Mann, first on our inability to replicate his temperature principal components calculations and secondly on both verification of the integrity of the dataset sent to us and on further particulars of his reconstruction methodology, noting problems in the early period. Mann refused to answer and stated that he would not respond to further inquiries on the subject. It is unfair of you to blame us for the fact that the correspondence ended there without satisfactory resolution. Full disclosure of the data and methods used in MBH-r (and MBH98), as requested above, will allow all interested observers to quickly get to the core points of disagreement in our analyses. Thank you for your consideration. Stephen McIntyre/Ross McKitrick Dr Timothy J Osborn Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm ______________________________________________________________ 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