date: Tue Jun  6 13:58:45 2006
from: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Re: Wengen meeting
to: Eduardo Zorita <Eduardo.Zorita@gkss.de>

   Dear Eduardo,
   sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your email till now, but I know that Keith
   already did pass on our regrets about this situation.  I think that the meeting will be
   poorer for your absence, but also understand your concern about how constructive/defensive
   the discussion might be.
   The meeting starts tomorrow and, as usual, I am short of time and so only now finishing my
   presentation.  I have been allocated just 10 minutes and 4 slides!
   There is probably no one who will show *critical* results regarding bias in reconstruction
   methods using pseudo-proxies.  I thought that maybe I should therefore include 1 or 2
   slides from SO&P pseudo-proxy work and maybe have some in backup for the discussion.
   The von Storch et al. (2004) work is of course "public domain", so I could show those.  But
   would you be happy for me to show something from your SO&P meeting talk at the last meeting
   in Bern?  You had some slides in the presentation showing (1) how similar Erik-2 and CSM
   are; (2) pseudo-proxy results from Erik-2 for detrended, non-detrended and
   non-detrended+longer-calibration period.  Would you be happy for me to show these?  I
   understand if you would prefer that I didn't, given that they are not yet published.  But I
   guess the second one is very similar to the figures in your response to Wahl et al. that is
   published, except the former used Erik-2 and the latter used Erik-1.  Anyway, I will be
   happy to show any of these if you will allow.  Or if you prefer, then I will show only
   figures that have been published.
   Sorry for the short notice..., hopefully you are able to reply soon.
   Cheers
   Tim
   At 22:31 03/05/2006, you wrote:

     Dear  Tim, dear Keith,
     I am writing to inform you that I have reconsidered my acceptance to attend
     the Wengen meeting. In the last days I have  convinced myself  that under the present
     circumstances
     a constructive discussion on reconstruction methods is unfortunately not  possible.
     We have another exchange on the last Journal of Climate paper by Mann et al, which is
     now under review. Even the editor of J. of Climate found adequate to tell us that all
     inflammatory comments in their response would have to be eventually deleted.
     Even considering the considerable pressure that he has is
     exposed to in American politics, I think Michael Mann is unable of any constructive
     discussion.
     I am very grateful for your invitation to this meeting and I hope that we can continue
     our collaboration in other ocasion.
     Best wishes
     eduardo