Journalist Anne Jolis asks Mann if he has "rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work"; Mann says that the question "betrays a deep naivety about how the peer review process in science works" and buys into "rather offensive conspiracy theories"

Email 4666

-How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review processes of publications in the field of climate science, as something of a "gatekeeper," you have rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work. Is this fair? Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work that is or is not worthy of publication?   [Anne Jolis]

I won't dignify that question with a response, other than to say that it betrays a deep naivety about how the peer review process in science works, and it buys into what I consider to be rather offensive conspiracy theories that impugn the integrity of editors, reviewers in general, and myself in particular.  [Mann]

-Do you have a response to work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the predictive capabilities of the method you used in your original "hockey stick" graph (which I do realize did not use the Yamal data) would not be able to predict current temperatures? [Jolis]

You seem to be unaware of the fact that there were two serious rebuttals...[Mann]