From	Tom Crowley	Date	Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:18:19 -0600
To	Michael E. Mann
CC	Malcolm K. Hughes, ray bradley, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, Tim Osborn
Subject	Re: Wally
Mike, you are really the most appropriate person to be the lead author on this - I was just volunteering myself as the unfortunate soul who has to bear the brunt of Wallys wrath Tom ps Peck would be fine of course but I don't know whether we want to get him tangled up in the acrimony - we could of course ask for his comments beforehand >HI Tom, > >Thanks--I was thinking this too. Ray held out a real olive branch to Wally >by the extremely balanced piece he wrote in Science last year (some of us >thought he caved in a bit too much!). So there was absolutely no reason for >Wally to write this piece. > >If Julie Uppenbrink gives us the go-ahead, I say lets do as Tom suggests. I >think this has a lot more cachet if all on this list are willing to sign on >as co-authors. > >Regarding primary authorship: On the one hand, it would be appropriate for >me tsince it is primarily Mann et al that is explicitly under attack here, >though all of us are implicitly under attack. However, I think the piece >carries a lot more weight if it is authored by someone of Wally's stature, >and I think Tom far better fits the bill in this regard. So if Tom is >willing to bear the brunt of this, I would definitely endorse him being >primary author. > >I would argue to include Peck too, but I think this would be a conflict for >him, as he is pretty close to Wally. So best to leave it w/ the current >group in my opinion. Lets pursue this further once Phil hears back from J.U... > >mike > >At 09:16 AM 2/26/01 -0600, tom crowley wrote: >>Hi all, >> >>I vote for a response - quick and to the point - itemized in fact. >> >>The only problem is somehow has to volunteer to be the sacrificial lamb as >>first author - that person will almost certainly be badgered by Wally and >>probably charged with some trumped up unethical piece - he will also >>probably try to subvert the review process by contacting the Editor of >>Science. This is not paranoia - Wally did exactly this when some people >>(some at Lamont!) questioned his conveyor explanation for the LIA that came >>out in Science a year or so ago. He was actually screaming at some of >>these people in the Lamont lunch room. >> >>That said, I say we must bite the bullet and do it - Wally doesn't like me >>anyway so it wouldnt make as much a difference to me if I volunteered to go >>to the slaughter but if there is anyone else who wants to take the lead, >>thats fine with me!! >> >>Tom >> >>ps as I indicated the other day I will be in only until this Friday after >>which I am out for a month - I could write enough to get us going and then >>hand it over to someone else to deal with the submission business (MIke?) >> >> >>>Thanks a bunch Phil, >>> >>>Will look forward to hearing back w/ more info. I talked to Dick Kerr last >>>week about related stuff (an IPCC article he's writing) and he made no >>>mention of this at all! I wonder who did commission this, and why? >>> >>>mike >>> >>>At 02:51 PM 2/26/01 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: >>>>A >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike, >>>> I've had a quick read and sent an email to Julia Uppenbrink to get her >>>>views as >>>> she commissioned our piece. Also asked about a response, particularly on >>>the >>>> high and low frequency indicators. I was going to send Wally two papers >>>> (Sarah Raper's on linking trees and glaciers in J. Glaciol. and Brian >>>>Luckman's >>>> in The Holocene, where the two are also linked but only in a qualitative >>>>way). >>>> From the weekend it was clear he had no ideas about these. His lack of >>>>knowledge >>>> of density data in trees come through in the article as well. >>>> In Maine he also went on at length about the Stine work. and seems to >>>>in this >>>> piece as well. Malcolm should know all about this. >>>> I'm going to go home soon as I'm getting knackered, but I'll email you >>>>Julia's >>>> response. I think she'll find out who asked Wally to do it, as he >>>>implied to me it >>>> was. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> PS Meant to say at the start that I see your points. Thanks for pasting >>>>it to us. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Prof. Phil Jones >>>>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >>>>School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >>>>University of East Anglia >>>>Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>>NR4 7TJ >>>>UK >>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>- >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>> Professor Michael E. Mann >>> Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall >>> University of Virginia >>> Charlottesville, VA 22903 >>>_______________________________________________________________________ >>>e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137 >>> http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html >> >> >> >> >>Thomas J. Crowley >>Dept. of Oceanography >>Texas A&M University >>College Station, TX 77843-3146 >>979-845-0795 >>979-847-8879 (fax) >>979-845-6331 (alternate fax) >> >> >> >> >_______________________________________________________________________ > Professor Michael E. Mann > Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall > University of Virginia > Charlottesville, VA 22903 >_______________________________________________________________________ >e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (804) 924-7770 FAX: (804) 982-2137 > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.html Thomas J. Crowley Dept. of Oceanography Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3146 979-845-0795 979-847-8879 (fax) 979-845-6331 (alternate fax)