Warmists can't reach a consensus on a Soon et al paper: Mann says it's "irresponsible, deceptive, dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach"; WIgley says the paper contains "numerous criticisms, usually justified"

2003 ClimateGate email

Would we be compelled to provide a counterexample to disprove the authors if they had asserted that "1=2"? What they have done isn't that much different... So its one thing to throw out a bunch of criticisms, very few of which are valid. But to then turn around and present a fundamentally ill-posed, supposed "analysis" which doesn't even attempt to provide a quantitative "alternative" to past studies, to claim to have disproven those past studies, and to supposedly support the non-sequitor conclusion that the "MWP was warmer than the 20th century" is irresponsible, deceptive, dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my view. One or two people can't fight that alone, certainly not with the "artillary" (funding and political organization) that has been lined up on the other side. In my view, it is the responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation campaign, which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in. I'm doing everything I can to do so, but I can't do it alone [wait a minute:  what happened to the thousands and thousands of scientists who allegedly agree with Mann?]--and if I'm left to, we'll lose this battle, mike [Mann]
At 02:18 PM 5/16/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear folks, I have just read the Soon et al. paper in E&E. Here are some comments, and a request. Mike said in an email that he thought the paper contained possibly 'legally actionable' ad hominem attacks on him and others. I do not agree that there are ad hominem attacks. There are numerous criticisms, usually justified (although not all the justifications are valid). I did not notice any intemperate language. While many of the criticisms are invalid, and some are irrelevant, there are a number that seem to me to be quite valid....It is already 'credible' since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed).