date: Tue Jan 20 15:09:15 2004
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
subject: ms#2978
to: kivel@stanford.edu

   Steve
   I have been through this carefully and the substantive content is genuinely fine . The
   essence of what Mann and co-workers say is that the purported auditors of their work
   (McIntyre and McKitrick- MM ) have failed to demonstrate anything other than if you use a
   different selection of predictors you can arrive at a different reconstruction , albeit one
   with no verifiable fidelity. Though this is patently obvious , in the context of the undue
   interpretation many people are placing on the MM paper , a useful scientific purpose is
   served by making it clear that this is what MM have done. Mann and colleagues must to some
   extent infer the exact details but they provide sufficient evidence of how MM likely came
   to their result. This is a point worth clarifying and from your point of view worth
   printing .
   The manuscript is compact , and the content valid in as much as I can judge. One could get
   into semantics as to whether MM actually put their series forward as evidence of global
   warmth in the 15th century (as stated in the first paragraph of this manuscript) but this
   is to miss the point , which is that this is a convincing refutation of any implication
   that MM have in any way disproved  the reconstruction of Mann et al . Beside suggesting
   some rephrasing at the bottom of page 2 and middle page 4 as suggested , I recommend
   publishing as is.
   suggested rewording ...
   Page 2
   6 lines up from bottom -
   instead of "produces their spurious reconstructed 15th warmth century which is.."
                 "produces the spurious warmth reconstructed by them during the 15th century:
   warming which is.."
   Half way down page 4
   replace "for the reconstruction over the"
   with
    "over the independent validation period (1854-1901) corresponding to their calibration of
   the reconstruction for the period  ". Remove the word "interval" after 1500.
   Page 7
   replace " associated of ours upon "
   with
   "associate , upon".
   Two thirds down page 4
   "It was completely incorrect for MM03 to conclude that their reconstruction provided
   statistically reliable evidence of anomalous warmth prior in the 15th..."
   could be
   "It is incorrect for MM03 to conclude that their reconstruction provides statistically
   reliable evidence of anomalous warmth in the 15th..".
   Northern Hemisphere and Table should start with capitals
   Finally, the references need checking to confirm that all in the reference list are cited
   in the text (I suspect they are not).

   --
   Professor Keith Briffa,
   Climatic Research Unit
   University of East Anglia
   Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.

   Phone: +44-1603-593909
   Fax: +44-1603-507784
   [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa[2]/