From: Malcolm Hughes To: "Michael E. Mann" Subject: Re: Fwd: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:47:40 -0700 Cc: Tom Wigley , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, wigley@ucar.edu, phil Jones , keith Briffa , Gavin Schmidt Michael E. Mann wrote: > Hi Malcolm, > > This assumes that the editor/s in question would act in good faith. > I'm not convinced of this. > > I don't believe a response in GRL is warranted in any case. The MM > claims in question are debunked in other papers that are in press and > in review elsewhere. I'm not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest > broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end > run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many > deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no > possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon > et al paper. These were all pure crap. > > There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now, > unfortunately... > > Mike > > At 08:47 PM 1/20/2005, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu wrote: > >> Mike - I found this sentence in the reply from the GRL >> Editor-in-Chief to be >> interesting: >> "As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as >> a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to >> look it over." >> Does it not then follow that if you were to challenge their "work" in >> a "full- >> up scientific manuscript", but not as a "Comment" it, too, should be >> reviewed >> without reference to MM? >> Maybe the editor-in-chief should be asked if this is the case, or simply >> challenged by a submission? >> Cheers, Malcolm >> Quoting "Michael E. Mann" : >> >> > >> > >> > Thanks Tom, >> > >> > >> > Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something >> might be >> > up here. What a shame that would be. It's one thing to lose "Climate >> > Research". We can't afford to lose GRL. I think it would be >> > useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and >> > potentially Mackwell (I don't know him--he would seem to be >> complicit w/ >> > what is going on here). >> > >> > >> > If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it >> could be >> > taken through the proper channels. I don't that the entire AGU >> hierarchy >> > has yet been compromised! >> > >> > >> > The GRL article simply parrots the rejected Nature comment--little >> > substantial difference that I can see at all. >> > >> > >> > Will keep you all posted of any relevant developments, >> > >> > >> > mike >> > >> > >> > At 04:30 PM 1/20/2005, Tom Wigley wrote: >> > >> > Mike, >> > >> > >> > >> > This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years. >> > I >> > >> > think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful >> > >> > dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have >> > >> > on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in >> > the >> > >> > publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was >> > >> > trying to keep it from being published. >> > >> > >> > Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that >> > Saiers >> > >> > is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find >> > documentary >> > >> > evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get >> > >> > him ousted. Even this would be difficult. >> > >> > >> > How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the >> > >> > authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass >> > >> > is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously >> > >> > rejected was submitted to GRL. >> > >> > >> > Tom. >> > >> > =============== >> > >> > >> > Michael E. Mann wrote: >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > >> > Just a heads up. Apparently, the contrarians now have an >> > "in" with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the >> > University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences that causes me >> > some unease. >> > >> > >> > I think we now know how the various Douglass et al papers w/ >> Michaels and >> > Singer, the Soon et al paper, and now this one have gotten published in >> > GRL, >> > >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Subject: Your concerns with >> > 2004GL021750 McIntyre >> > >> > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:42:12 -0600 >> > >> > X-MS-Has-Attach: >> > >> > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >> > >> > Thread-Topic: Your concerns with 2004GL021750 McIntyre >> > >> > Thread-Index: AcT/MITTfwM54m4OS32mJvW4BluE+A== >> > >> > From: "Mackwell, Stephen" >> > >> > >> > To: >> > >> > >> > Cc: , >> > >> > >> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2005 20:42:12.0740 (UTC) >> > FILETIME=[84F55440:01C4FF30] >> > >> > X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork7.mail.virginia.edu >> > >> > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by >> multiproxy.evsc.Virginia.EDU >> > id j0KKgLO11138 >> > >> > >> > Dear Prof. Mann >> > >> > In your recent email to Chris Reason, you laid out your concerns that I >> > presume were the reason for your phone call to me last week. I have >> > reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor >> > in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the >> > manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an >> > extensive and thorough review. For that reason, he requested >> reviews from >> > 3 knowledgable scientists. All three reviews recommended >> > publication. >> > >> > While I do agree that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat >> > aggresively) some of your past work, I do not feel that it takes a >> > particularly harsh tone. On the other hand, I can understand your >> > reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but >> rather as >> > a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to >> > look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the reviewers. >> > Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to interfere in the >> > timely publication of this work. >> > >> > However, you are perfectly in your rights to write a Comment, in which >> > you challenge the authors' arguments and assertions. Should you >> elect to >> > do this, your Comment would be provided to them and they would be >> offered >> > the chance to write a Reply. Both Comment and Reply would then be >> > reviewed and published together (if they survived the review process). >> > Comments are limited to the equivalent of 2 journal pages. >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Steve Mackwell >> > >> > Editor in Chief, GRL >> > >> > >> > >> > ______________________________________________________________ >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > 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 > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > Hi Mike - of course we shouldn't make that assumption. If the issues are being dealt with elsewhere in the peer-reviewed literature soon (in time for IPCC to be aware of them) then there would be no reason for a riposte in GRL. Even so, it might be worth putting the hypothetical case to the Editor-in-Chief to test his response. Cheers, Malcolm