From: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
To: Andrew Revkin <anrevk@nytimes.com>
Subject: Re: mcintyre's latest....
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk

   HI Andy,

   Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don't quote
   anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically--thanks.

   Re, your point at the end--you've taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential
   for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
   legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
   particular the peer review process.  A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
   for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
   scientific peer review process.  those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside
   of this system are not to be trusted.

   mike

   On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:

   thanks heaps.
   tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
   reviewed lit or shut up. i'm going to post that soon.
   just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU ...  a little unclear  .  ?
   I'm copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions
   made over at climateaudit.org.....
   I'm going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on
   the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
   peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge
   building happens, would you agree?

     p.s.  Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) is probably the best person to contact for
     further details, in Keith's absence,

     mike

     On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:

     Hi Andy,

     I'm fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and
     is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I
     have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.

     It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some
     of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I'm fairly certain the versions of
     these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method),
     let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature
     shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming
     is anomalous in a long-term context.

     So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn't matter as far as the key
     conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned.  But I don't think there is any problem
     with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
     information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of
     this, in Keith's absence.

     if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in
     question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our '98 article in Nature), his
     comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic
     warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won't
     submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism "published" it will
     be in the discredited contrarian home journal  "Energy and Environment". I'm sure you
     are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
     published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and
     the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
     Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are
     parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections
     with the energy industry, and who hasn't submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer
     review.

     Fortunately, the prestige press doesn't fall for this sort of stuff, right?

     mike

     I'm sure you're aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
     science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is
     no

     On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:

     needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
     picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
     about Yamal data-set selectivity.
     Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he's seeking
     journal publication for his deconstruct?
     --
     Andrew C. Revkin
     The New York Times / Environment
     620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
     Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
     Fax:  509-357-0965
     [2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

     --

     Michael E. Mann
     Professor
     Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
     Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075

     503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
     The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [3]mann@psu.edu
     University Park, PA 16802-5013
     website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

     "Dire Predictions" book site:

     [5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

     --

     Michael E. Mann
     Professor
     Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
     Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
     503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
     The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [6]mann@psu.edu
     University Park, PA 16802-5013
     website: [7]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

     "Dire Predictions" book site:

     [8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

--

   Andrew C. Revkin
   The New York Times / Environment
   620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
   Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
   Fax:  509-357-0965
   [9]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin

   --
   Michael E. Mann
   Professor
   Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
   Department of Meteorology                 Phone: (814) 863-4075
   503 Walker Building                              FAX:   (814) 865-3663
   The Pennsylvania State University     email:  [10]mann@psu.edu
   University Park, PA 16802-5013
   website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
   "Dire Predictions" book site:
   [12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

References

   Visible links
   1. mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
   2. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
   3. mailto:mann@psu.edu
   4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
   5. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
   6. mailto:mann@psu.edu
   7. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
   8. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
   9. http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
  10. mailto:mann@psu.edu
  11. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
  12. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

   Hidden links:
  13. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
  14. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm
  15. http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm

