Today I spent some time re-visiting 2003 in light of the Climategate Letters.
I was intrigued by the very first allusion to Mc and Mc in the Climategage Letters in a trailer to an Oct 26, 2003 letter (the day before MM2003 was released) here . A climate scientist (not identified in the trailer), stated that the instability of Mann’s reconstruction to variations in input data was “known by most people who understand Mann’s methodology”:
Personally, I’d offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann’s methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries . Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past.
Mann’s very first response – before he even considered what was in the paper – was to email the Team (in this case, Bradley, Hughes, MacCracken, Schneider , Crowley, Wigley, Socc, Oppenheimer, Briffa, Jones, Osborn, Tim Profeta of Lieberman’s staff, Santer, Hegerl, Mosley-Thompson, Lonnie Thompson and Trenberth) concluding as follows:
The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.