Thursday, February 02, 2012

Email 112, Feb 2007: Michael Mann lashes out at Curtis Covey, who dared to write things like "...the science is not yet settled" in an email to unbelievers Singer and Monckton

Email 112

date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.] to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Ben Santer , "Raymond S. Bradley" , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones, James Hansen
Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What ib earth are you thinking? You're not even remotely correct in your reading of the report, first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans you've done some irreversible damage. shame on you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann


Dr. Curtis C. Covey
Research Scientist, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

No comments: