cc: Scott Rutherford , Tim Osborn , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:38:07 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: Re: the usual stuff to: "raymond s. bradley" Ray, that relates to another issue that I'll discuss among the more technical problems. Ray, this relates to a different problem. They didn't calculate PCs of the networks stepwise like we did, they calculated on the full available interval--so our PCs and their PCs aren't PCs of the same thing! A minor point, but yet something else they did wrong (or at least, different)... mike Incidentally, do you have an explanation for this statement: Indeed it was the observation of the unusually poor fit between the MBH98 Texas-Mexico PCs and the underlying ITRDB data that led to the detailed audit undertaken in this paper. Ray At 04:44 AM 10/30/2003 -0500, you wrote: Malcolm, Ray, Scott... It looks like they've severely misrepresented the Mann et al proxy data in their supposed recreation of the dataset (what give the result Figure 6d and their Fig 7 (bottom) that look so ridiculous. I'll need your help to confirm this isn't my imagine. I believe this is what they've done: Look at table 7.5 in their paper (attached). If I'm reading correctly, they've completely misrepresented the PC series. They've obliterated most of our data prior to 1600 based on their inability to find the same versions of the data underlying our PCs on the WDCP (even though we clearly have those individual series that make up the PCs in the appropriate subdirectory of our public ftp site: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/ If so, the pre-1600 proxy data set they have created has nothing whatsoever to do w/ the MBH proxy data set. They've eliminated all of the early ITRDB and Stahle PC series, because they couldn't find the corresponding series on the WDCP site! Is this really what they've done??? Please all read and let me know if this is your interpretation too. If so, this is scandalous, absolutely scandalous. A brazen act of intellectual dishonesty. But I need some 2nd, 3rd, etc. opinions as to whether or not they've really done something so alarming here!!! thanks, now back to sleep for me... mike At 12:22 AM 10/30/2003 -0700, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu wrote: Mike - I don't know if I've been getting all the correspondence, but I've certainly got plenty! I did see the one with the submitted version of the riposte to USA Today, but didn't see anything about whether they will carry it. As for the other point, we might want to consider sending the response to Energy and Environment - after all, their turn-round time is fast - in the expectation that they will not publish it. Maybe there are other possibilities as well as web sites? My gut feeling is to avoid advocacy outlets even though they are sympathetic - in the long run that would damage our credibility with, for example, the lieberan/McCains of this world. How about Scientific American, or the Chronicle? Dick Kerr and his ilk could also be vlable too. I hope you are getting some sleep and rest now - adrenaline cold turkey is a horrible sensation so be careful! Also - heed Mike Oppenheimer's wise and kind words! These guys (or their allies) will hit back in some way, so let's not shoot all our bullets at once. Back to the middle taiga.... CHeers, Malcolm Quoting "Michael E. Mann" : > > > Hi Malcolm, > > > have you been recieving all the correspondences? There is still the > possibility that the op-ed will run in USA Today tomorrow. We took the > liberty of signing you on, even though we couldn't get confirmation from > you on the final draft... > > > Meanwhile, I've already discovered numerous major errors, and still > finding some more. I'm taking the initial stab that you and Ray took at > drafting a more formal response, and turning it into a detailed > description of their mistakes. > > > I'm still open to thoughts about what to do with this. I personally don't > think that we should submit a response to E&E--that implicitly would > recognize it as a legitimate forum. And we can't do that. > > > We could post the response on an appropriate website, and broadcast its > availability to the community. I'm guessing that David Appell would be > more than happy to provide a link from his blog to this... > > > mike > > > At 08:33 PM 10/29/2003 -0700, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu wrote: > > > > > Mike - I assume you were dealing > with the following all along - > > [1]http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html > > Cheers, malcolm > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > [2]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > > > ______________________________________________________________ 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 Raymond S. Bradley Distinguished Professor Director, Climate System Research Center* Department of Geosciences Morrill Science Center 611 North Pleasant Street AMHERST, MA 01003-9297 Tel: 413-545-2120 Fax: 413-545-1200 *Climate System Research Center: 413-545-0659 <[4]http://www.paleoclimate.org> Paleoclimatology Book Web Site: [5]http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/paleo/html ______________________________________________________________ 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 [6]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml