cc: "Sonja.B-C" , "Ross McKitrick" , "Keith Briffa" ,"Phil Jones" date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:39:50 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: MM Reply to MBH Response to: "Steve McIntyre" Dear Stephen McIntyre, thank you for your email, copied below for the benefit of my colleagues. Your perception of our involvement in this aspect of climate science is indeed correct and I am pleased that you seem to feel our contribution can be seen as independent and useful in moving the debate and science forwards. I will consult with Keith Briffa and Phil Jones before responding to your request. Phil is away in Germany until Friday, and then I am away on Friday. If Phil has access to email, then we may be able to respond this week. If not, then we will respond next week. In that case, even if we decide to examine part 2 of your response, it would be unlikely that we would do so by 19th November. In the meantime, for your information, I copy below a reply made to Bob Ferguson in relation to a similar (though not identical request). It will give you an idea about my views on this process. Regards Tim ----------------------------------------------------------- >Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 09:27:45 +0000 >To: Bob Ferguson >From: Tim Osborn >Subject: Re: M&M response >Cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Phil Jones" > >At 15:38 03/11/2003, you wrote: >>Dear Tim, >> >> McIntyre and McKitrick are preparing a response to Mann et al. >> >>Can we expect you to post it on your web site also? In the spirit of >>fairness you asked of us? >> >>Cordially, >>Bob Ferguson > >Dear Bob, > >The answer to your question is "possibly". > >I have urged Mann et al. to develop a more definitive response to the >McIntyre and McKitrick paper, one that is published in the peer-reviewed >literature (thus representing a more long-lasting contribution that can be >cited when necessary). In doing this, I have also suggested that they >communicate with McIntyre and McKitrick to ensure, as much as possible, >that their response is based on what McIntyre and McKitrick actually did, >rather than based on what Mann et al. surmise they did based on a reading >of their paper and supplementary information. > >My preference is to await the outcome of this process rather than posting >any more interim documents. > >You might ask, then, why we posted the Mann et al. interim response. Had >Mann et al. been involved in the reviewing stage of the McIntyre and >McKitrick paper then we probably wouldn't have got involved in this issue >at all. But Mann et al. told us they had not been given the opportunity >to review the paper and they demonstrated that it was possible (even >likely?) that some errors (as opposed to equally valid alternative >choices) might explain the different results. It seemed appropriate to >quickly get this possibility into the public domain, to avoid wrong >conclusions being drawn in what is a policy-relevant area. > >The exact content of the McIntyre and McKitrick response could, of course, >influence our decision on posting interim documents, which is why I >answered "possibly" rather than "no" to your original question. > >Regards > >Tim ------------------------------------ At 04:52 12/11/2003, Steve McIntyre wrote: >November 11, 2003 > > > >Dear Dr. Osborn > > > >Based on your correspondence with Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, we perceive >an interest on your part to pursue the issues raised in our paper in a >professional way, and a willingness on the part of you and your associates >to try to enhance the quality and tone of the public discussion of these >issues. > > > >We have developed a 3-part reply to public comments made by Professor Mann >to reporters and journalists and to the response document from Professors >Mann, Bradley and Hughes posted on your web site (which we will call >MBH-r). The first part concerns the identity and use of some key files and >was released for public information today. This part does not involve >climate issues, but file usage, and, accordingly, we did not feel that we >should impose on you in this part of our reply. > > > >The second part is a detailed examination of the contents of the >newly-identified FTP site, which Professor Mann says was the data archive >for MBH98. The third will present a reconciliation of key indicators and >computational methods between MM and MBH-r and, once again, carry out a >re-calculation of the temperature index. > > > >We write with two requests, which can be severed if you wish. > > > >First, would you please forward the accompanying letter from us to >Professor Mann, keeping a copy for yourself. This letter asks him, among >other things, to release the computer programs used in construction of the >temperature index in MBH98, to identify the "159 series" now identified as >being used in MBH98 and correct some public statements made recently on >our use of files. In its own right, CRU/UEA might well have an interest in >the disclosure of these 159 series, as this number now introduced in MBH-r >is a different number than used in MBH98 and we are unaware of any >previous public information on this topic. The quality of the proposed >re-calculation and related debate would obviously be much enhanced by >disclosure by Professor Mann of his exact methodology, which, in our view, >is long overdue in any event. > > > >Second, we would like you, Keith Briffa and/or Phil Jones to examine Part >2 prior to its release. If you are willing to do so, we propose the >following terms > > > * The document is only concerned with published data and there is no > need to obtain private information from Professor Mann in order to check > the claims we make. Consequently we would require you to treat the > document as confidential. > * Since we have been asked many times when our response will be > available, if you are willing to examine it, while it is in your > possession, we will post the statement that this part of our reply is > being critically examined at the Climate Research Unit, University of > East Anglia. > * If you identify any flaws in our document, we will rectify them, and > you are at liberty to hold us to public account if we fail to do so. > * If you find our document raises valid and meritorious concerns, you > will give us a short statement to that effect which we are entitled to > publish. > * We will have your comments by November 19th. > > > >In principle, we would be prepared to make a similar arrangement on Part >3, following completion of Part 2. > > > >If you wish to amend these terms please revert to us as quickly as >possible. If they are acceptable, please advise and we will send you the >document immediately. We appreciate your consideration of this arrangement >and hope that it will contribute to avoiding unnecessary conflict and >highlighting important issues. > > > >Sincerely > > > > > >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: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm