From	Michael E. Mann	Date	Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:56:01 -0500
To	Gavin Schmidt, Stephen H Schneider, Tom Wigley, Ben Santer, Michael E. Mann, ray bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Michael Oppenheimer, jmahlman@ucar.edu, Keith Briffa, Phil Jones
Subject	Fwd: RE: WSJ article
Interesting that Antonio R. doesn't (or at least claims not to) recognize a lack of balance in the article. Please treat this email as confidential. I don't believe that sending a letter to the editor myself would be the best avenue. But perhaps someone else is interested in pursuing this? Mike Subject: RE: WSJ article Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:43:10 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WSJ article Thread-Index: AcUUaIg6ON4Ck5ANQ2OfoGmU0QNsvAAAEqMA From: "Regalado, Antonio" To: "Michael E. Mann" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2005 22:43:10.0610 (UTC) FILETIME=[E423A720:01C51478] X-UVA-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at fork11.mail.virginia.edu Hi Mike, On the personal stuff, Id go with your first impressions, rather than the perceptions of others. This isnt a one-sided story. Anyway, I certainly want to find out who is right here and so I am open to writing more as the papers come out and the facts become clearer, just as I have written in the past about the Soon and Balliunias business (p. A3not bad) and about paleo-climate (p. 1 story in 2002 about Gary Comers funding, feature story on Lonnie Thompsons melting glaciers), etc. Would it surprise you to hear that anytime I write a story which seems to favor global warming I am also deluged by accusations of bias and demands for corrections etc.? Regarding Moberg, I think the issue you are raising is a question of emphasis and not a matter for a correction. The specific sentences youre thinking of (Indeed, new research from Stockholm University on historical temperatures suggests past fluctuations were nearly twice as great as the hockey stick shows. That could mean the 20th-century jump isn't quite so anomalous. ) seem to me be not only factual but precisely to the point of what the mainstream of science is discussing vis a vis MBH, which was the topic of that part of my story. For instance, in the Anderson/Woodhouse commentary that accompanied Moberg in the same issue of Nature, they too stress the increased variability just as I did and they make no mention of the late 1990s. And as per my email Monday, my article does also say that other reconstructions also indicate that the 20^th Century was unusually warm and that the punch line is the same. Im sure youre fully sick of writing letters, but this may be right opportunity for a letter to the editor from you or someone who you can second. The person to send a letter to is [1]Karen.Pensiero@wsj.com. If you want, CC: me and my editor, [2]Elyse.tanouye@wsj.com. Or even an editorial on the broader topic of where the science is at. I can give you the name for who to send an editorial to if you want it. It is probably worth pointing out that no amount of debate can change the facts buried in those tree rings, etc.. Yes, I will continue to write about climate. The next topic is impacts. What do you think is the best story there? Id like to write about current impacts rather than only projected ones as these will be more tangible for the reader. Also, since the Arctic has been well covered Id be interested in impacts at lower latitudes. Antonio ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [3]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml References 1. mailto:Karen.Pensiero@wsj.com 2. mailto:Elyse.tanouye@wsj.com 3. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml