Ulrich Cubasch is Professor of Meteorology at the Free University in Berlin and a co-author of the 2007 IPCC Report. He reports that they are currently working on replicating Mann’s work and that his Ph.D. student "promptly found a can of worms".
This is Benny Peiser’s translation of http://www.heise-medien.de/presseinfo/bilder/tr/05/tr0503038.pdf
In my view, the present debate about Michael Mann’s diagram is actually an expression of a healthy scientific discussion. Whoever questions the curve does not have to be a climate sceptic. My team of researchers is also working on the curve. I had set one of my PhD students the task to replicate Mann’s work. Quite soon, she came to the conclusion that she cannot reproduce his diagram. We strove to look deeply into it – and promptly found a can of worms. After all, that’s how science works. The real problem in this case, in my view, is that Michael Mann does not disclose his data. It is also problematic that the discussion has become politically explosive. As climate sceptics notices that there are uncertainties in the results, they immediately see that as proof that climate research produces only nonsense. I consider it inadmissible to turn a completely specialist science debate into a fundamental criticism of climate research and the IPCC. After all, Mann’s study appeared in NATURE, a renowned peer-revewied specialist journal. In such cases, the IPCC team has to rely on peer review. To check each publication used in the IPCC report would take far too long.
In the meantime, a European Union project named "Soap" has been set up which is looking into the problem with Mann’s climate curve. Climate researchers from seven institutes are working on temperature curves for the last 1000 years. The project has a budget of nearly 1.4 million euro over a period of three years – which is the period one needs to examine Mann’s curve reliably.
Benny Peiser commented:
Good timing! It means that the "Soap" results will most likely be published just in time for the 2007 IPCC report – but without leaving ‘auditors’ any time for critical assessment of possible
I hardly know where to start in commenting on this and will content myself with two short comments and probably re-visit this on another occasion.
It’s nice that 7 years after the fact, 4 years after IPCC TAR that Cubasch’s group is examining Mann’s curve. Given the public reliance on Mann’s curve, I would have thought that Cubasch’s group had some sort of obligation to publish some sort of notice of their findings of the "can of worms", rather than delaying 3 years using SOAP as an excuse.
I’ve tried to get access to SOAP data but have gotten nowhere.