Monday, December 12, 2011

1065125462.txt

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@virginia.edu>
To: "Robert Matthews" <r.matthews@physics.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:11:02 -0400
Cc: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>, ckfolland@meto.gov.uk, peter.stott@metoffice.com, d.viner@uea.ac.uk, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk

Dear Mr. Matthews,
Unfortunately Phil Jones is travelling and will probably be unable to offer a separate
reply. Since your comments involve work that is his as well, I have therefore taken the
liberty of copying your inquiry and this reply to several of his British colleagues.
The comparisons made in our paper are well explained therein, and your statements belie
the clearly-stated qualifications in our conclusions with regard to separate analyses of
the Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, and globe.
An objective reading of our manuscript would readily reveal that the comments you refer to
are scurrilous. These comments have not been made by scientists in the peer-reviewed
literature, but rather, on a website that, according to published accounts, is run by
individuals sponsored by ExxonMobile corportation, hardly an objective source of
information.
Owing to pressures on my time, I will not be able to respond to any further inquiries from
you. Given your extremely poor past record of reporting on climate change issues, however,
I will leave you with some final words. Professional journalists I am used to dealing with
do not rely upon un-peer-reviewed claims off internet sites for their sources of
information. They rely instead on peer-reviewed scientific research, and mainstream, rather
than fringe, scientific opinion.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Mann
At 08:30 PM 10/2/2003 +0100, Robert Matthews wrote:

Dear Professor Mann

I'm putting together a piece on global warming, and I'll be making reference to your
paper in Geophysical Research Letters
with Prof Jones on "Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia".

When the paper came out, some critics argued that the paper actually showed that there
have been three periods in the last 2000 years which were warmer than today (one just
prior to AD 700, one just after, and one just prior to AD 1000). They also claimed that
the paper could only conclude that current temperatures were warmer if one compared the
proxy data with other data sets. (For an example of these arguments, see:
[1]http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n34c4.htm)

I'd be very interested to include your rebuttals to these arguments in the piece I'm
doing. I must admit to being confused by why proxy data should be compared to
instrumental data for the last part of the data-set. Shouldn't the comparison be a
consistent one throughout ?

With many thanks for your patience with this
Robert Matthews
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Matthews
Science Correspondent, The Sunday Telegraph
C/o: 47 Victoria Road, Oxford, OX2 7QF
Email: [2]r.matthews@physics.org
Homepage: [3]www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/People/
Tel: (+44)(0)1865 514 004 / Mob: 0790-651 9126
----------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________________________________
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
[4]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

References

1. http://www.co2science.org/journal/2003/v6n34c4.htm
2. mailto:r.matthews@physics.org
3. http://www.ncrg.aston.ac.uk/People/
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

No comments:

Post a Comment