From: Tom Wigley To: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: Nature: Review of manuscript 2005-12-14395 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:26 -0700 Keith, Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off. They claim that three cores do not cross-date for TRW. They also say (without results) that the same applies to MXD (these results may be in their Supp. Mat. -- I presume you checked this). So, all you need say is ... (1) TRW was not the only data used for cross-dating. (2) When MXD is used there are clear t-value peaks, contrary to their claim. You can show your Fig. 4 to prove this. (3) The 3-core-composite cross-dates with other (well-dated) chronologies (Yamal and Polurula), confirming the MXD-based dating. You can show your Fig. 5 to prove this. You could say all this in very few words -- not many more than I have used above. As it is, your verbosity will leave any reader lost. There are some problems still. I note that 1032 is not cold in Yamal. Seems odd. Is it cold in *all* of the three chronologies at issue? Or did a reindeer crap next to one of the trees? Also, there seems to be a one-year offset in the 1020s in your Fig. 6. I hope this is useful. I really think you have to do (and can do) a better job in combatting the two Ms. If this stuff gets into Nature, you still have a chance to improve it. Personally, I think it would be good for it to appear since, with an improved response, you can make MM look like ignorant idiots. Tom. ========================= Keith Briffa wrote: > Dear Emma > I am very sorry for the delay in returning this response to the > submitted Brief Communication By McIntyre and McKitric . I have been > extremely busy and to substantiate my written remarks it was necessary > to dig out the original data and produce a number of Figures > illustrating the true nature of the cross-dating of the data . I have > (or at least my Research Associate Tom) has now done this and I am > finally in a position to write the response. This is contained in the > WORD file attached to this message . The Figures are attached in a > separate file. I am happy for you to send the attached written > response to McIntyre and McKitric , but I would prefer if you would > NOT send the Figures , at least until these are posted on the Climatic > (hopefully sometime tomorrow). I am accepting your offer of sending > this response directly to you rather than sending it through the > Nature system . Sorry that it is a little long. > If you decide to publish their communication ( which I consider very > unlikely , given its entirely fallacious content) I would expect > Nature to publish this response and find room to publish my Figures > (even if only as Supplementary material). Thank you again for your > patience. > yours sincerely > Keith > > > > > >> At 10:30 06/01/2006, you wrote: >> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> boundary="_----------=_113654340816203" >> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >> >X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.6; B2.12; Q2.03) >> >Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 10:30:08 UT >> >Message-Id: <113654340854@www11> >> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> > >> >Dear Professor Briffa >> > >> >I am writing to you on behalf of Rosalind Cotter, with regard to >> >your Reply to the Communications Arising manuscript by Dr Irwing and >> >co-authors entitled "A gender difference in intelligence?". Should >> >you now have had the chance to consider the paper, we would be >> >grateful if you could send us your comments as soon as possible. >> > >> >We would respectfully remind you that if we do not hear from you >> >within the next few days, we shall proceed with the reviewing >> >process without a Reply from you (in accordance with our guide to >> authors). >> >> > >> >Alternatively, if it would be more convenient, please send your >> >reply directly to me by return email. However, please highlight >> >those comments that are confidential and which should be passed on >> >to the authors. >> > >> >Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. >> > >> >Yours sincerely >> > >> > >> >Emma Poulter >> >Editorial Assistant >> >Nature >> >The Macmillan Building >> >4 Crinan Street >> >London N1 9XW, UK >> >Tel +44 (0)20 7833 4559 >> >Fax +44 (0)20 7843 4596/7 mailto:e.poulter@nature.com >> > >> >For Dr Rosalind Cotter >> > >> >*Nature's author and policy information sites are at >> >www.nature.com/nature/submit/. >> >Nature's publisher, Nature Publishing Group, does not retain >> >authors' copyright. Authors grant NPG an exclusive licence, in >> >return for which they can reuse their papers in their future printed >> >work. An author can post a copy of the published paper on his or her >> >own not-for-profit website. >> > >> >The Macmillan Building, Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK >> >Tel +44 (0)20 7833 4000; Fax +44 (0)20 7843 4596/7 nature@nature.com >> > >> >968 National Press Building, 529 14th Street, Washington DC 20045, USA >> >Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609 nature@naturedc.com >> > >> >225 Bush Street, Suite 1453, San Francisco CA 94104, USA >> >Tel +1 415 403 9027; Fax +1 415 781 3805 nature@naturesf.com >> > >> > >> >This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System >> >NY-610A-NPG&MTS > > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 >