Climategate 2.0: Mann to Revkin — Use me but don’t quote me

Even Mann is embarrassed by his own work and thoughts.

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, in September 2009, Michael Mann employs a willing Andy Revkin to attack the hokey stick debunkers. Revkin writes to Mann:

thanks heaps.

tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the reviewed lit or shut up. i’m going to post that soon.
just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU … a little unclear . ?

I’m copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions made over at climateaudit.org…..

I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.

peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge building happens, would you agree?

Mann responds,

HI Andy,

Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don’t quote anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically–thanks.

Re, your point at the end–you’ve taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely
outside of this system are not to be trusted.

Read the e-mail exchange below.
————————————————

Attachment Converted: “C:EUDORAAttach7368_ms.pdf”
cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
from: Michael Mann
subject: Re: mcintyre’s latest….
to: Andrew Revkin
HI Andy,
Yep, what was written below is all me, but it was purely on background, please don’t
quote
anything I said or attribute to me w/out checking specifically–thanks.
Re, your point at the end–you’ve taken the words out of my mouth. Skepticism is
essential
for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But
legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in
particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient
condition
for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate
scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely
outside
of this system are not to be trusted.
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
thanks heaps.
tom crowley has sent me a direct challenge to mcintyre to start contributing to the
reviewed lit or shut up. i’m going to post that soon.
just want to be sure that what is spliced below is from YOU … a little unclear . ?
I’m copying this to Tim, in hopes that he can shed light on the specific data assertions
made over at climateaudit.org…..
I’m going to blog on this as it relates to the value of the peer review process and not on
the merits of the mcintyre et al attacks.
peer review, for all its imperfections, is where the herky-jerky process of knowledge
building happens, would you agree?
p.s. Tim Osborn ([1]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk) is probably the best person to contact for
further details, in Keith’s absence,
mike
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Andy,
I’m fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and
is not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I
have from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.
It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some
of the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I’m fairly certain the versions of
these data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization
method),
let alone any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean
temperature
shown in the most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent
warming
is anomalous in a long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn’t matter as far as the key
conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don’t think there is any
problem
with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of
this, in Keith’s absence.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in
question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our ’98 article in Nature), his
comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic
warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he
won’t
submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism “published” it will
be in the discredited contrarian home journal “Energy and Environment”. I’m sure you
are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap
published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and
the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn
Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are
parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious
connections
with the energy industry, and who hasn’t submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer
review.
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
I’m sure you’re aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is
no
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he’s seeking
journal publication for his deconstruct?
—
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax: 509-357-0965
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
—
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: [3]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [4]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[5]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
—
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: [6]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [7]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[8]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
—
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax: 509-357-0965
[9]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
—
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: [10]mann@psu.edu
University Park, PA 16802-5013
website: [11]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
“Dire Predictions” book site:
[12]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html