To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: some info you'll want to have...
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:05:07 -0500
Cc: Gabi Hegerl <firstname.lastname@example.org>, tom crowley <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, "raymond s.bradley" <email@example.com>, Keith Briffa <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jonathan Overpeck <email@example.com>, Stefan Rahmstorf <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Steve Schneider <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Gavin Schmidt <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Thomas, Fortunat, Reto:
You might have wanted to check w/ us first, but thanks anyway for responding to this. We've
uncovered the error in what they did. They didn't use the proxy data available on our
public ftp site, which I had pointed them too--instead they used a spreadsheet file that my
associate Scott Rutherford had prepared. In this file, most of the early series were
overprinted at later years. This resulted in the reconstruction becoming increasingly
spurious as one goes further back in time--the estimates prior to 1700 or so were rendered
meaningless. There were also some other methodological errors that will be detailed
shortly, but this was the big one.
So they will probably have to retract the paper. You can find out more about this here, on
journalist David Appell's "blog":
We also have an op-ed piece going out this afternoon, further detailing the problems. Will
send that as soon as its available. I've attached a few other relevant documents, and I'm
forwarding another email I sent out to colleagues yesterday, just after I had discovered
the main problem in what they've done...
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: email@example.com Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Journalists.re.EandEfin-revised.doc"