date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:17:37 +0100 from: Jan Esper subject: Re: Science review to: "Cook, Ed" , "Briffa, Prof. Dr. Keith" Dear Ed and Keith, as you might know, I am also not happy with the way our result is discussed between you and also between Ed and others. Please keep in mind that the result is the growth curve itself and the description of the way we produced the curve. When I was working on that curve and applying some perhaps strange ideas (mixing sites and species before standardization), the only thing I was interested in was Ed's opinion. So, I was quite nervous when Ed came back from Tasmania and we had a long discussion on what I did in the last couple of weeks. That day, when Ed told me that the curve is highly useful, was one of the best days in my lets say "scientific career". And when I noticed that he is spending his time to improve the result and also added some useful confidence limits (following your (Keith's) advice) meant more to me than any written or spoken word of support. From here on, I knew that the months I spent to study growth levels and age-related trends in a huge data set were not senseless. To be clear, you two are the most experienced and best dendroclimatologists on this planet. Now, what to do, if you don't agree on the way a result is introduced (please Keith, keep in mind that you also like the result = curve and agree that it is a highly useful curve)? I am 100% sure that there is only one answer: You have to accept each others opinion. If you don't do this, we have a serious problem in our field of research! I don't know Wally Broecker that good, but I had the chance to talk to him (and others) and to present our curve. To be also on this point clear, I really don't care who in the broader scientific community is fighting with or against Wally. The more or less only important experience I had with Wally, is that he is able to say that he was wrong with the sentence about tree rings he has published in his February science piece. He did this in front of like 50 people, and he has obviously no problem that he will (again) called wrong in our paper. Isn't this "reaction" scientific and professional? I am also not 100% sure whether we should address the point that Wally (and some others) don't read dendrochronological literature so intensively. By the way, I also believe that requesting reading "our journals" is a nice try, but does not meet the reality. That's why it was important to gave three talks in a row to these people, and that's also the reason why it is important to publish the result (!) in a journal these scientists read. Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it is an important one. Come on Keith, you know much better than I do, that the curve is what counts. The curve will make its way. The curve might be improved, perhaps by you, Rosanne or others... It will also be shown that the curve is very similar to the one you produced from 4 high latitude sites. And the curve will also show that the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why don't you want to let the result into science? And why don't you accept that Ed (not me!) has a different opinion - especially if it is only about the way the curve is introduced? Take care, Jan -- Dr. Jan Esper Swiss Federal Institute WSL Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf Switzerland Phone: +41-1-739 2510 Fax: +41-1-739 2215 Email: esper@wsl.ch