cc: Michael Mann date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:31:20 -0400 (EDT) from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: attacks against Keith to: Phil Jones , Tim Osborn I agree with Mike. This is not a peer review issue - this is a propaganda issue. And right now the good guys have conceded the field. The key observation is that 99% of the people cheerleading have absolutely no idea what McIntyre has done - they are just happy with the meme. Thus any response can't only be a technical one, it has to be one that demonstrates the integrity of the process - and that requires some degree of further info that only you guys can supply. The good news is that once something is out there, people will counter with links to that without themselves worrying about the detail. We are of course happy to help in any way. Gavin PS. Minor issue, but is Keith's sick leave status being broadcast via a vacation message on his email or website? I'm wondering if McI knew about this ahead of time. ============= Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies 2880 Broadway New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 678 5627 Email: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov URL: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Michael Mann wrote: > thanks Phil, Keith, > > I don't think the peer-reviewed literature is an acceptable response to this. > They don't bother publishing there anyway. They know they can do more damage > by just circumventing the process entirely, since they have immediate access > to the right-wing media. Look at today's Telegraph, the lie is already out > there in the public domain. > > I think we ought to get some sort of comment out there, perhaps through > "RealClimate", though its worth some discussion as far as the best form that > would take, perhaps in the form of an "editorial" (i.e. group post). > > Interested to hear Gavin's thoughts. got to run off to a meeting now, > > mike > > On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Phil Jones wrote: > >> Mike, Gavin, >> As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in >> soon, gradually during October and hopefully full time from November. >> I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the >> threads on CA. As you're fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre >> has done is going to be difficult. It would be so much easier if they >> followed normal procedure and wrote up a comment and submitted it to a >> journal. I looked through the threads yesterday trying to make sense of >> what he's done. My suspicion is that he's brought in other tree ring series >> from more distant sites, some of which may not even be larch. There are two >> chronologies that have been used - one called the Polar Urals and one >> called Yamal. PU is a Schweingruber site with density as well as ring >> width. The PU reconstruction is therefore not a chronology, but a >> regression based reconstruction from both MXD and TRW. Yamal is just a ring >> width series (with lots of sub-fossil material, so much older) from an area >> some distance (at least 500km) north of PU. It was developed by Hantemirov >> and Shiyatov and was poorly standardized - corridor method. I also don't >> think McIntyre understands the RCS method even though he claims to have a >> program. The ends and the age structure of the samples are crucial in all >> this, but I think he just throws series in. >> >> I totally agree that these attacks (for want of a better word) are >> getting worse. Comments on the thread are snide in the extreme, with many >> saying they see no need to submit the results to a journal! They have >> proved Keith has manipulated the data, so job done. Difficult to know how >> to respond to this. They ignore journal comments anyway - just as they will >> with Grant Foster's. >> >> Hadn't thought of Senate debates. I'd put this down to the build up to >> Copenhagen, which is sort of the same. >> >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/ >> >> is a complete reworking of Dave Thompson's paper which is in press in J. >> Climate (online). Looked at this, but they have made some wrong >> assumptions, but someone has put a lot of work into it. ENSO influences are >> probably slightly non-linear, but this didn't stop Mclean et al. >> >> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/ooops-dutch-meteorological-institute-caught-in-weather-station-siting-failure-moved-station-and-told-nobody/ >> >> This one is a complete red herring - nothing wrong with De Bilt >> measurements. This is what it is about according to someone at KNMI >> >> The issue you refer to is causing a lot of noise in the Netherlands (even >> MP's asking questions to the minister). It seems this is not at all about >> the observational series (nothing strange is going on), but more related to >> the "Law on KNMI" and the division of tasks between commercial providers >> and KNMI to be discussed by parliament soon. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> >> At 08:46 29/09/2009, Tim Osborn wrote: >>> Hi Mike and Gavin, >>> >>> thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith. >>> >>> I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. >>> He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another >>> month (barring a couple of lectures that he's keen to do in October as >>> part of a gradual return). Hopefully he'll be properly back in November. >>> >>> Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- >>> other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was >>> hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's >>> integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil (as I'm sure you >>> know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such attacks). >>> Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I >>> think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently >>> been asked to look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a >>> co-author on that and Darrell had asked Keith to help with a response to >>> the criticisms). >>> >>> Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could >>> shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather >>> loose cannon and shouldn't be directly contacted about this (also he >>> wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being discussed, though he has >>> been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently been >>> working towards that uses these -- and more -- data). >>> >>> Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already >>> considering a response. >>> >>> Off to lecture for a couple of hours now... >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >>> Climatic Research Unit >>> School of Environmental Sciences >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >>> >>> e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >>> phone: +44 1603 592089 >>> fax: +44 1603 507784 >>> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm >>> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> NR4 7TJ >> UK >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > -- > Michael E. Mann > Professor > Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) > > Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) 863-4075 > 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) 865-3663 > The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@psu.edu > University Park, PA 16802-5013 > > website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html > "Dire Predictions" book site: > http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >