by John P. Costella
October 26, 2003: email 1067194064
Mike Mann receives secret information about the forthcoming McIntyre and McKitrick paper, which marks the start of the debunking of the "hockey stick":
Two people have a forthcoming Energy and Environment paper that’s being unveiled
tomorrow (Monday) that—in the words of one Cato Institute / Marshall Institute /
Competitive Enterprise Institute 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.
In other words, most of Mann’s colleagues were fully aware of the problems.
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….
Mike Mann passes this on to a large number of colleagues:
A remarkable conclusion, given that he hasn’t read the paper yet!
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. It’s 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 a 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;
Again, Mann displays unbelievable arrogance in assuming that each and every paper submitted for publication should automatically be passed to one of his gang, so that it can be vetoed.
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
How on Earth can Mann tell others to discredit this paper, before anyone has actually read it? Simply because it disagrees with him?