cc: Ray Bradley , Malcolm Hughes , Mike MacCracken , tom crowley , Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck , , Michael Oppenheimer , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , , Ben Santer , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , "Lonnie G. Thompson" , Kevin Trenberth date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:19:17 -0800 (PST) from: Stephen H Schneider subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd: to: "Michael E. Mann" Hang in there Mike, just take pride that you are hurting them and they need to dissemble to get attention. It will fade in time, but the timing is not accidental--all about the McCain-Lieberman climate bill to be voted on this week. It will quiet down soon thereafter, so don't take the bait--just point out soberly why they are wrong and that they have no credible analysis to substitute for yours and the many real scientific investigators who independently do the same kinds of work--we replicate to gain confidence--and come up with similar conclusions. I'll attach my "final" testimony and some answers to Senator McCain's questions motivated by Sen. Inhofe's July28 Senate floor diatribes against me, Tom, you and others--cleverly disguised to say if one reads us between the lines we support THEIR positions. That makes responding in short paragraphs impossible, so my answers are way too long for Congress, but to give a paragraph would leave them guessing who was right and what happened. If anyone has any edits to suggest, I need them by Monday afternoon at the latest as COB monday McCain staff puts it up on the record I understand. Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy--a non trivial price some may pay politically if they guess worng what it means for their re-election (another reason why CATO et al are so shrill right now because this is a real threat to them and anything goes for them right now, including lies, character assainations etc--again, take no bait!). SUch "fun", CHeers, Steve PS TOm, I presume you got plenty of questions too? Send me yours when you get a chance. On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Michael E. Mann wrote: > Dear All, > > This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in > confidence. > > Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data  made. Its clear > that "Energy and Environment" is being run by the baddies--only a shill  for > industry would have republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted > to "Climate Research" without even editing it. Now apparently they're at it > again... > > My suggested response is: > > 1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called "journal" which is already > known to have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, > that nobody we know has been asked to "review" this so-called paper > > 2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result  has been > obtained by numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary > compositing techniques, etc. > > Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, > the usual suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to > deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by > any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.. > > Thanks for your help, > > mike > > >  two people have a forthcoming 'Energy & Environment' paper that's > being unveiled tomoro (monday) that -- in the words of one Cato / > Marshall/ CEI type -- "will claim that Mann arbitrarily ignored paleo > data within his own record and substituted other data for missing > values that dramatically affected his results.  >         When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no > data substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are > greater than the 20th century. >         Personally, I'd offer that this was known by most people who > understand Mann's methodology:  it can be quite sensitive to the input > data in the early centuries. Anyway, there's going to be a lot of > noise on this one, and knowing Mann's very thin skin I am afraid he > will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the > past...." > > ______________________________________________________________ >                     Professor Michael E. Mann >            Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall >                       University of Virginia >                      Charlottesville, VA 22903 > _______________________________________________________________________ > e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (434) 924-7770   FAX: (434) 982-2137 >          http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > ------ Stephen H. Schneider, Professor Dept. of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A. Tel: (650)725-9978 Fax: (650)725-4387 shs@stanford.edu Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\McCainQuestions for Schneider.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Schneider--McCain-LiebermanTestimony 10-01-03.doc"