Discussion of Reviews

When you notice an email discussing a review, could you jot down the email number, date, the reviewer, the reviewee. Please don’t editorialize, just note it for reference.


  1. David Falkner
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    Thursday July 10th. Email #1831. Ben Santer discusses reviews of counter-paper to Douglass etal 2007.

  2. Andrew Barnham
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:09 PM | Permalink


    • Andrew Barnham
      Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

      #4743. 28-Sep-09. Mann + Grant Foster + Trenberth. Comment on McLean 2009.

  3. Sean Houlihane
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    Do you also want review comments themselves? Here are a couple. I also suggest including the paper name to improve search results.
    0140.txt: 19 Oct 2004. Anonymous review comments from GRL. Tom Wigley – Extended Scenarios for Glacier Melt due to Anthropogenic Forcing
    0900.txt: 28 May 2009. Overpeck? comments from Science. Darrell Kaufman – Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling

  4. Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    File 0174.txt:
    Dec 4, 2007, Mann to Jones

    Hey Phil,
    thanks–nice coincidence in timing. So the 1990 [IPCC paleoclimate] graphic will be discussed in this review paper, right? Perfect, I’ll let Gavin know…

    Dec 5, 2007, Jones to Mann

    Yes the 1990 graphic is in an Appendix. The last few are being regularly hassled
    by Thorsten. The guy from EPRI (Larry) really wants something submitted soon.
    So working here to get something in by end of Jan. Keith is going to get
    it fast-tracked through the Holocene – well that’s the plan.

    The Loehle paper is awful as you know. So is another article on the IPCC process
    in E&E. I did look at Climate Audit a week or two back – I got the impression
    that McIntyre is trying to distance himself from some of these E&E articles by
    saying we have to be equally skeptical about them as well.

  5. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4922 Discussed by Pielke Jr http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/foia2011-on-shameful-paper.html

    • RayG
      Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

      snip – not journal review

  6. Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

    January 28, 2008

    Jones to Gene Wahl:

    Congratulations on the new job with the paleo group
    in Boulder.

    I’m currently in Boulder at a meeting. I’ll be here all
    the week and leave for home on Friday. Francis will be
    here as well. Caspar should be also. He’s not on the IDAG
    group, but I think he’s attending.
    I’ve been through what Tim has done and it looks OK.

    We’re under a bit of pressure from Thorsten and Larry
    (PAGES and EPRI) to get this whole thing off. Next weekend
    will be fine though.

    The three of us in CRU will have a good go the first week of
    Feb. Keith still needs to add in the tree-ring bit.

    Keith’s arranged with the Holocene to get the whole thing reviewed
    quickly, so we’ll pick up time.
    It seems though that Larry
    wants something to justify his funding of the Wengen meeting.

    When looking at the draft next weekend, look also at the
    Figures you supplied. Most are OK, but if you can send the
    one that is a bit blurry – and most detailed in another format
    that would be good.


  7. Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    Jones to sundry:

    On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:01, Phil Jones wrote:
    > Dear All,
    > Attached is the latest draft. This has undergone much change
    > in the past couple of
    > months. Keith has arranged for this to reviewed quickly by The
    > Holocene. Subject
    > to that being OK it will also be fastracked and could by out by the
    > boreal autumn.

  8. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM | Permalink

    164 Edward Cook 2007

    [6] ” Hi Tom and Keith,”” Here is my review of your \”signal-free\” paper just sent in to the journal and Connie Woodhouse who handled your paper.

  9. Sean Houlihane
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    4256.txt: 30 Mar 2009. P Jones review for GRL. Judith Lean and David Rind – How Will Earth’s Surface Temperature Change in Future Decades
    4261.txt: 2 Sep 2003. K Briffa review for GRL. Jan Esper, Fritz Schweingruber – Large-scale warming triggers Siberian treeline advances
    4602.txt: 15 May 2008. K Briffa review for GRL. LIU YU et al – Annual temperatures during 2.5 millennia in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau inferred from Tree rings

  10. TerryMN
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    Apologies if any have already been listed above…


    Steve: do you mind adding date and who was involved?

  11. TerryMN
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    Coming right up…

    • steven mosher
      Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:12 PM | Permalink

      Use a google fusion table and people can just add to it online


      • TerryMN
        Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

        Cross posted, sorry – and thanks for the link Mosh – will see if I can move the info into one and then Steve can bulldoze the updated post I just did (it’s in moderation because of email links from the headers…)

        • steven mosher
          Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

          See the table I started for you

  12. TerryMN
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:20 PM | Permalink

    Tried to make it somewhat readable, hope I didn’t miss any html tags…

    Thu Jan 3 10:15:12 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: French stuff (+ 3 PDFs)
    to: Edouard BARD
    “Over Christmas I got these two emails from EPSL about 2 papers I reviewed and rejected. I’ll forward just for you. I’m reviewer # 1, but there is an interesting note linking the editor to Courtillot.”

    date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:19:49 +0100
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Fwd: rural/urban paper
    to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,simon.tett@metoffice.com, peter.thorne@metoffice.com,chris.folland@metoffice.com, david.parker@metoffice.com
    “I reviewed Peterson’s one with Chris and couldn’t see anything wrong
    with the main message.”

    date: Fri Feb 15 12:16:35 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: Additional calculations
    to: santer1@llnl.gov
    ” I’m attaching a paper I reviewed (Tom Smith/Dick Reynolds et al) of their new version that has been accepted by J. Climate. ”

    date: Fri Jul 8 09:43:03 2005
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Alexander et al. (2005) pdf
    to: Kevin Trenberth
    “Have had a relook at the figures – I reviewed this for JGR.”

    date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:02:34 -0400
    from: Thomas C Peterson
    subject: Re: the next controversy
    to: Phil Jones
    “I was just asked to review a J. Climate paper on Chinese UHI. I declined (I reviewed a GRL pan evap article last week and have a J. Climate radiosonde homogeneity paper to review, hopefully, this week). I’ll paste the abstract they sent below just FYI as it relates to your UHI controversy. I recommended Li as a reviewer…”

    date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:55:39 -0400
    from: David Easterling
    subject: JGR paper etc.
    to: Phil Jones
    “Just letting you know I reviewed the paper Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an emphasis on China excellent paper.”

    date: Wed Oct 28 09:34:09 2009
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: RE: Review paper on temperature inhomogenities – looking for
    to: Blair Trewin
    “Attached is one other paper that will come out in Feb 2010 in Weather. Don’t pass this. … Had to review this poor paper. Also another paper on Chinese temps. Spent some time rewriting this one as you might guess!”

    cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,Phil Jones
    date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:41:23 +0000
    from: Tim Osborn
    subject: Re: Moberg et al.
    to: “Michael E. Mann”
    “In confidence, I can tell you that I reviewed a very similar paper by the
    same authors that was submitted to Science last year, and recommended

    date: Tue Jan 27 09:36:31 2004
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: 2004GL019493
    to: Saburo Miyahara
    “I’ve just submitted the review. As you will see I did not think too much of it.”

    cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
    date: Tue Jan 15 13:17:19 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Differences in our series (GISS/HadCRUT3)
    to: James Hansen
    “I reviewed a paper from NCDC (Tom Smith et al) about issues with recent SSTs and the greater number of buoy type data since the late-90s (now about 70%) cf ships.”


    cc: Tom Wigley , “Michael E. Mann” , Mike Hulme
    date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 12:40:57 -0700
    from: Ben Santer
    subject: More on Climate Research…..
    to: Phil Jones , rls@email.unc.edu
    “Over a year ago, Tom and I reviewed (for JGR) a paper by Douglass et al. that was virtually identical to the version that has now appeared in Climate Research. We rejected it.”

    • Kan
      Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 1:28 AM | Permalink

      Regarding #2397 above. Jones was an author, with Qingxiang Li on the paper “Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an emphasis on China”.

      date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:33:28 +0800
      subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: 2008JD009916 (Editor – Yinon Rudich):
      to: “Phil Jones”

      “Dear Dr. Jones:

      On February 5, 2008, I received your manuscript entitled
      “Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an
      emphasis on China” by authors Phil Jones,
      David Lister, and Qingxiang Li.

      Yinon Rudich
      Editor, JGR-Atmospheres”


      • Kan
        Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 2:19 AM | Permalink

        Ren is suspected as being the other reviewer for the “Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an
        emphasis on China” paper.

        cc: d.lister@uea.ac.uk
        date: Mon Apr 14 13:53:36 2008
        from: Phil Jones
        subject: Revised paper

        “By the way I think that the two reviewers were Ren and Dave Easterling. Only Dave Easterling would know what was said in his 1996 paper and also only Ren (or one of the co-authors) would know what was in Ren et al (in press when the review was done) in J. Climate.”

  13. Robert Thomson
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:33 PM | Permalink

    snip – not a journal review

  14. StuartR
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:42 PM | Permalink


    cc: Keith Briffa, Eystein Jansen
    date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:23:30 -0400
    from: Tom Crowley
    subject: Re: thoughts and Figure for MWP box
    to: Jonathan Overpeck

    5) I am not sure whether it is wise to add me to the CA list, just
    because the reviewer is supposed to be impartial and a CA loses that
    appearance of impartiality if he has now been included as a CA – may
    want to check with Susan S. on this one to be sure – still happy to
    provide advice

  15. Robert Thomson
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    snip – not a journal review

  16. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    3056 Milliman

    • Kan
      Posted Nov 29, 2011 at 3:04 PM | Permalink

      #0824 is fully enclosed in #3056

  17. mitchel44
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    snip – not a journal review

  18. Ian
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 5:41 PM | Permalink

    Email 3500 – not sure if this is exactly the sort of thing you are getting at but it looks close enough, as the team discuss their response to McLean, deFreitas and Carter in 2009.

    This is a chain of emails from 5 August 2009 with the subject “ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR”.

    Grant “Tamino” Foster emails other team members saying that he has “completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries” he needs help with, including suggesting reviewers.

    The journal’s requirement was to “list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an [b]unbiased[/b] review of your work. [b]Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators[/b], or family members.”

    A few names are kicked around by Foster, Jones and Trenberth. Jones summarises the suggestions by saying:

    [b]”All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.”[/b]

  19. Craig Loehle
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 5:51 PM | Permalink

    4191 Loehle paper on Divergence for Climatic Change sent to Briffa to review, he declines due to conflict of interest.

  20. DocMartyn
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 7:42 PM | Permalink


    …Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, Mark New Editor Geophysical Research

    Jones reviewing Scafetta and West

    “What is totally unreasonable about your use of these series is to patch the instrumental
    record from 1850 onwards on the end. You need to show the Mann and Moberg series through to
    their ends then add the instrumental data to the plot for comparison (after whatever
    smoothing you’ve applied)”

  21. Jim T
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 8:30 PM | Permalink

    2986 Jan 2005 — Mann to Chris Reason (editor at GRL)

    Trying to “re-define” peer review:

    ” > A number of colleagues of mind have informed me of an inflammatory and
    > deeply flawed paper that has apparently been accepted in GRL by two
    > individuals McIntyre and McKitrick. The paper is full of false claims
    > that were already rejected by Nature in a comment that these authors had
    > submitted on the previous work of my co-authors and me.
    > The authors have apparently been distributing this paper to various
    > individuals, including colleagues of mine. Obviously, neither my
    > co-authors nor I were granted any opportunity to respond to the unfounded
    > criticisms in this paper. But it is furthermore my understanding that
    > none of my scientific colleagues in this research area (that is
    > high-resolution paleoclimate reconstruction–this would include
    > researchers at CRU, Univ. of Arizona, Lamont Doherty, Duke University,
    > University of Bern) had any role in the review of this paper. This is
    > especially disturbing.
    > I am very concerned that this paper has been accepted by GRL. It is one
    > in a number of deeply flawed papers that have been accepted in the
    > journal recently (several papers by Douglass et al, one by Soon et al,
    > and now this one), and a number of my other colleagues, such as Tom
    > Wigley, are very concerned about this as well.
    > I have tried to contact the chief editor Stephen Mackwell to discuss
    > this matter, but have been unable to reach him. I was hoping you might be
    > able to provide some help or information on this matter.”

  22. Niklas
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM | Permalink

    5332.txt, 31 Mar 2008, Ed Cook reviewing Schofield and Barker.

  23. Jim S
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

    From 5188

    “J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestr. Phys.”
    subject: ATP1392R1, Invitation to review
    to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk

    Dear Dr. Jones,

    The manuscript Solar radiation, sea surface temperature and global warming by Prof. Antonino Palumbo has been submitted (or re-submitted) for publication, and given your knowledge of this subject I feel I would like to request your review….

  24. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

    This appears to be Mann’s review of Jones, Briffa and Osborn JGR, 2003. Changes in the Northern Hemisphere annual cycle – implications for paleoclimatology? Submitted on 2003-04-17.

    4132. 2003-04-28
    date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:46:11 +0100
    from: Phil Jones

    subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: RE: Rog Outline
    to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
    Somewhere in this message is Mike’s review of the seasonal cycle paper.
    X-Sender: mem6u@multiproxy.evsc.virginia.edu
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1
    Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:02:43 -0400
    To: Phil Jones

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Rog Outline
    Cc: mann@virginia.edu
    HI Phil,

    Review on the JGR paper appended below. As you might imagine, my main sensitivity was w/ conclusions about implications for e.g. Mann et al which I didn’t think necessarily
    followed from this analysis. The revisions requested are mostly changes in wording, and it should be straightforward to address them in a final version…

    General Comments:
    This is an interesting manuscript, raising some important issues regarding seasonality of past temperature trends that are interesting in there own right, and may have potential implications for certain paleoclimate reconstructions. These issues are worthy
    of discussion in the literature, and JGR is an appropriate venue. The authors, as is typical, have done a careful job with their analysis, and it appears sound, as do the
    primary conclusions, although I have some specific reservations. The primary criticism
    is that the authors imply a greater generality to their conclusions than can actually be
    justified, given the limitations of the available data series. There are a number of
    important caveats that need to be invoked in the interpretation of the results, and the
    limitations in drawing large-scale conclusions from the limited data need to be
    acknowledged up front. There are a number of underlying issues regarding the nature of
    the seasonal and spatial details of past climate change (in particular, forced climate
    change) which likely impact the interpretation of the results, which are not given
    adequate discussion in the manuscript at present. Given the space available in a JGR
    paper (vs. e.g. a GRL article), there is no excuse for not providing more detailed
    discussion where appropriate. I provide several specific comments below along these
    lines which should be addressed in a revised version of the manuscript.

    Specific Comments
    1) Abstract–the generality of the conclusions are overstated in the abstract. The
    evidence is only from Europe and China (i.e, only the fringes of the Eurasian continent
    alone) but the wording argues that implications apply to other regions. It isn’t even
    clear that the conclusions apply to the interior of the Eurasian continent, let alone
    any of North America (see comments below). It is a leap of faith, then, to assume that
    the results generalize to extratropical hemispheric (let alone, full hemispheric)
    trends, and the authors need to be more cautious in drawing general conclusions.

    2) Introduction, first sentence: There is a potential “straw man” argument being
    introduced here. Precisely which “annual temperature” reconstructions are being referred
    to here? The statement made could arguably apply to Crowley and Lowery (2000), which is
    based on scaling a composite of largely extratropical (and mostly summer-sensitive)
    proxy records against the annual mean Northern Hemisphere mean instrumental series. It
    is far more difficult, however, to argue that the authors’ statements fairly
    characterize the Mann et al (1998;1999) annual mean temperature reconstruction. In the
    latter case, half of the area of the hemispheric mean surface temperature reconstruction
    comes from tropical latitudes (i.e., latitudes below 30N), and the proxy indicators
    primarily used to calibrate the tropical annual-mean patterns of variance are almost
    certainly not boreal warm-season in nature (for the example, the ENSO-scale patterns of
    tropical SST variance in the reconstruction are calibrated, in large part, by a
    combination of cold-season drought sensitive tree-ring data from Mexico, tropical
    tree-ring data, and tropical corals and ice cores–none of which could be argued to
    exhibit a boreal warm-season sensitivity bias!). The authors arguments cannot be argued
    to apply to these reconstructions (as seems to be implied by later comments–see below).

    3) Discussion of Figures 1 and 2 on pages 5-6: the authors should compare a single
    long-term composite series based on averaging the various (potentially, standardized)
    station JJA-DJF series with that which is available for the full NH back through the mid
    19th century. The point here is to see how well they compare in terms of the general
    trends during the interval (back through the mid 19th century) of overlap–in fact,
    based on inspection of e.g. Figure 1, I don’t think that there will be much similarity,
    and, if that is the case, then it demands extreme caution in generalizing about the true
    large-scale or hemispheric nature of inferred trends in summer-winter temperature
    differences based on the sparse long series available to the authors.
    4) Related to point #3 above, recent studies (see e.g. the discussion in the Mann, 2002
    piece which is in the reference list but not actually cited in the text, and also the
    results of Shindell et al, 2003) have shown that large seasonal differences in
    temperature trends are expected in past centuries because of the seasonally-specific
    response, in particular, to volcanic forcing (see Kirchner et al, 1999). The largest
    seasonal differences are likely to occur in the continental centers, where volcanic
    forcing tends to impart a large summer cooling but also typically a sizeable
    dynamically-induced warming (related to the response of the Northern Annual Mode, or
    ‘AO’ or ‘NAO’ to volcanic stratospheric aerosol forcing) in the following winter The
    large differences, however, are observed over the continental centers, and in fringe
    regions such as Europe or China, the response may not even be of the same sign as the
    continental mean response, which is dominated by the behavior of the continental
    centers. Thus, any spatial network (proxy or instrumental) which exhibits a bias with
    respect to the sampling of the continents is likely to exhibit a bias in terms of the
    estimate of summer-winter temperature differences (Mann, 2002). Since the authors
    instrumental network only samples the fringes of the Eurasian continent, it is very
    unlikely to capture the true winter-summer difference in Eurasian continental mean
    temperature, let alone Northern Hemisphere extratropical continental (Eurasia and North
    America) temperature, let alone Northern Hemisphere extratropical mean (land and ocean)
    temperature, let alone true Northern Hemisphere (tropical and extratropical, land and
    ocean) temperature! Once again, this calls for caveats in the interpretation of the
    present results with regard to hemisphere-scale implications.
    5) Related to the above, why don’t the authors show, in Figure 1, the results for some
    of the long available North American series (which includes several long east coast
    series, but also a series in Minnesota back to the early 19th century) to establish the
    similarity of the longer-term summer-winter trends in the two continents (this too
    should be included in the composite discussed in point #3 above).
    6) End of first paragraph on page 6, the authors might note that certain modeling
    studies (Shindell et al, 2003) have indeed already looked at potential
    seasonally-distinct temperature changes in past centuries, that are associated with the
    seasonally-distinct signature of the response to known natural climate forcings.
    7) Figure 3 indicates a relationship that holds during the latter 20th century,
    presumably somewhat specific to the mix of internal and forced variability that
    dominates over that period. This may not be representative of the situation in earlier
    centuries, where the primary pattern of forced variability is by volcanic and solar
    forcing which impart distinct regional and seasonal signatures in the temperature field
    (see Shindell et al, 2001;2003) that are likely to be quite different from those
    associated with anthropogenic forcing (GHG and aerosol) which dominate during the
    interval examined by the authors. Related to this, have the series been detrended before
    calculating the correlations shown in Figure 3? This has a bearing on the
    8) 3rd paragraph on page 7, the discussion of previous work (e.g. Mann et al, 1998;1999)
    here is misleading for the reasons spelled out in point #2 above. The arguments
    assuming a warm-season sensitivity bias do not apply to the full hemispheric
    reconstruction but, at most, the extratropical component of the reconstruction. The
    statement (2 sentences up from bottom of paragraph) “Their implicit assumption that the
    relative trends…” is not a fair statement in reference to the Mann et al multiproxy
    reconstructions, and the discussion needs to be revised here. An analysis (Rutherford et
    al, to be submitted) shows, using a common statistical method, but distinct data sets,
    that the multiproxy network of Mann et al calibrates and cross-validates cold-season
    variability more skillfully than the tree-ring maximum latewood density (‘MXD’) density
    network of Briffa and coworkers, while the Briffa et al MXD network, in turn, calibrates
    warm-season variance more skillfully than the multiproxy network. In short, the
    conclusions drawn here don’t apply to reconstructions of tropical surface temperature
    variability, nor to multiproxy data used to reconstruct that variability, so the
    implications of the authors results for multiproxy reconstructions of full Northern
    Hemisphere annual mean temperature are not clear. The authors need to downplay their
    conclusions in this regard.
    9) The authors and this reviewer are in common agreement that seasonally-specific
    biases are likely to be present in most climate proxy data, and that these biases need
    to closely considered in the process of climate reconstruction. This is a fair point,
    and one worth emphasizing in the conclusions But the specific conclusions of the authors
    in this study regarding summer-winter differences based on the series analyzed do not
    clearly generalize to other proxy-based surface temperature reconstructions
    (particularly multiproxy reconstructions with an equal tropical and extratropical
    emphasis) for the reasons spelled out above, and this point, in fairness, should be
    Kirchner, I., G.L. Stenchikov, H.-F. Graf, A. Robock, and J.C. Antuna, Climate model
    simulation of winter warming and summer cooling following the 1991 Mount Pinatubo
    volcanic eruption, Journal of Geophysical Research, 104 (D16), 19039-19055, 1999.
    Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Rind, D., Waple, A., Solar forcing of
    regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum, Science, 294, 2149-2152, 2001.
    Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, R., Mann, M.E., Volcanic and Solar forcing of
    “Little Ice Age” Surface Temperature Changes, Journal of Climate, in press, 2003.

  25. Kate60
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 10:16 PM | Permalink


    2003 11:03
    from: Eric Steig
    subject: review of Holocne paper by Masson-Delmotte et al.
    To briffa

    date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007
    from: “Michael E. Mann”
    subject: Re: Fwd: RE: review of E&E paper on alleged Wang fraud
    to: Phil Jones

  26. Rob Z
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 10:18 PM | Permalink

    snip – please focus on JOURNAL reviews.

    • Rob Z
      Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 10:28 PM | Permalink

      sorry…forgot cc: Gavin Schmidt
      date: Thu May 22 09:28:52 2008
      from: Phil Jones
      subject: Re: Thompson et al paper
      to: mann@psu.edu

      And PJ said “Yes”.

  27. InterstingTimes
    Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

    Glenn McGregor Chief Editor of the International Journal of Climatology and Phil Jones paper


    Referee 1
    “…I recommend to reject this manuscript, it is well below the standard acceptable in IJC or any other refereed journals. The manuscript did not contribute to the area of research, and the methodology used for comparison is naiveEand unaccepted in scientific publications…”

    “…In view of the comments of the referee(s) your manuscript has been denied publication in the International Journal of Climatology….”

    “…I’m afraid these two reviews will definitely discourage me from submitting more papers to IJC! The two reviewers have not realized the novelty of this paper…You can ignore this email if you want. I won’t be submitting this paper to IJC again…”


    “…As I am not able to read every paper in detail I have to resort to taking a decision based on the reviews. In this case both were rather negative, hence my decision. Based on your response what I would like to do, with your permission, is to send the paper to a 3rd reviewer and request an opinion within 3 weeks…”

    “…Can I make one suggestion? Good if the reviewer were a Brit – then they’s know something about the context. Possibilities would be Rob Wilby and Nigel Arnell…”

    “…Phil Thanks for the useful suggestion…”

    • InterstingTimes
      Posted Nov 23, 2011 at 11:35 PM | Permalink


      “…I managed to get a third reviewer to look at the comments on your WG paper. Have pasted these below. I will rescind the decision of “reject” and change it to major revisions. Hope you are satisfied with this…”

      “3rd Reviewer’s Comments
      “…I think both of these reviews are very reasonable and not overly harsh, especially the lengthy and measured remarks from Reviewer 2. My major criticisms have all been noted by one or both of the reviewers:…”

      • Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM | Permalink

        re 2452.txt
        The paper did subsequently appear in the online journal “Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics”.

  28. Kan
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 1:19 AM | Permalink

    0139.txt Jones to Santer

    “Also just sent back comments to Mike Mann on the paper by Tom and
    you factoring out ENSO and Volcanoes. Felt like writing red ink all over
    it, but sent back a short publish suject to minor revision to Mike. This
    is the first time I’ve ever reviewed one of Tom’s or your papers !
    Copy of what I sent is attached. I forgot to sign it before sending it !

  29. Kan
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 2:03 AM | Permalink

    #0160 between Briffa and Wahl
    July 21-23 2006
    Wahl Ammann

    Topic is about text Briffa wants to use as comments – looks like responses to the IPCC review comments.

    At the bottom is this:
    > >”The idea of frequency dependent
    > >skill/non-skill is not new to the literature, and the independent
    > >re-reviewer that Steve Schneider had look over Wahl-Ammann said s/he
    > >had experienced this issue in his/her work.”

  30. andy
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 2:57 AM | Permalink


    from: “Michael E. Mann”
    subject: Re: Fwd: Re: clarification re Mann / McKitrick andMcIntyre
    to: Tim Osborn , Michael Oppenheimer , Tim Osborn , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , , , Tom Wigley , tom crowley , Gabi Hegerl , Jonathan Overpeck , REDACTED

    Dear All,
    We have an official response to be submitted shortly for peer-review. We will send the
    response to all of you for your comments, whether or not you get it for review.

  31. Kan
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 3:39 AM | Permalink

    A series of emails from Neil Roberts at Quaternary Science Reviews to Keith Briffa regarding reviews for paper titled “Imprints of Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and twentieth century warmth in proxy-based temperature reconstruction at high-latitudes of Europe”

    #4696 regards review of the second submittal after a recommendation for rejection by Briffa and Melvin over the flawed use of the RCS method. Paper does not look to have been published.

    date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:30:01 +0100
    from: “Quaternary Science Reviews”
    subject: Reviewer Invitation for JQSR-D-06-00173

    date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:07:24 +0000
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Fwd: Second Reminder of Late Review for JQSR-D-06-00173
    to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk

    date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:34:09 +0000
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Fwd: Re: Reminder of Late Review for JQSR-D-06-00173
    to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk

    date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:05:07 +0100
    from: “Quaternary Science Reviews”
    subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision

    date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:24:54 +0100
    from: “Quaternary Science Reviews”
    subject: Reviewer Invitation for JQSR-D-07-00060

    Interesting Note: #2000, #4063 are just forwards to Melvin of an email from Roberts to Briffa. The source emails from Roberts to Briffa are absent.

  32. MikeN
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 3:45 AM | Permalink

    4882, Phil Jones was a reviewer for Wall & Ammann Dec 2005.

  33. Kan
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 3:56 AM | Permalink

    #0463 To Phil Jones as a reviewer.

    date: 26 Oct 2009 10:19:58 +0000
    from: “J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestr. Phys.”
    subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision
    to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk

    Title: Distinguishing Paleoclimate Reconstructions from Instrumental Series

    Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics

    Rejection notice.

    Tere is a review at the bottom from reviewer number 1.

  34. Kan
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 4:28 AM | Permalink

    #2699 and #2180 to Phil Jones as a reviewer

    Title: Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe

    Journal: Earth and Planetary Science Letters
    Authors: Elena Blanter; Jean-Louis Le Mouël; Mikhail Shnirman;
    Vincent Emmanuel Courtillot

    date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:55:30 -0400
    from: epsl
    subject: Re: Reviewer Invitation for EPSL-D-07-00839
    to: Phil Jones

    Phil Jones comments on paper.

    date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 03:23:59 -0000
    from: “Earth and Planetary Science Letters”
    subject: Reviewer Notification of Editor Decision


    Reviewer 1 Comments included.

    • Kan
      Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 4:32 AM | Permalink

      #3793 is the reviewer request for the above paper

      “Evidence for Solar Forcing in Variability of Pressures and Temperatures in Europe”

      date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:52:17 -0000
      from: hilst-epsl@mit.edu
      subject: Reviewer Invitation for EPSL-D-07-00142

  35. InterstingTimes
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 5:36 AM | Permalink

    0275: Dec 12, 2007 – Mar 5, 2008
    0054: May 5+6, 2008
    4235: Jan 10+11, 2008
    0455: Jan 11, 2008
    4316: Jan 11, 2008
    5097: Jan 11, 2008
    4828: Jun 4, 2008
    1831: Jul 9+10, 2008
    Referee 1: Francis Zwiers
    Referee 2: unknown
    Reviewing Santer et al 2008 (responding to Douglas et al 2007)

    Osborne to Santer and Jones:
    “…I’m on the editorial board of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to accompany any comment).
    I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn’t quantify this) and he will also “ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs”. He genuinely seems
    keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process…”

    “…The editor of IJoC, Glenn McGregor, has agreed to treat our paper as an independent submission rather than as a comment on Douglass et al. This avoids the situation that I was afraid of – that our paper would be
    viewed as a comment, and Douglass et al. would have the “last word” in this exchange…”

    • InterstingTimes
      Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 5:52 AM | Permalink


      cc: Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , Carl Mears , “David C. Bader” , “‘Francis W. Zwiers'” , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , “Michael C. MacCracken” , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , ‘Susan Solomon’ , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , “Hack, James J.”
      date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:38:40 -0800
      from: Ben Santer
      subject: IJoC and Figure 4
      to: Peter Thorne

      Francis Zwiers will later be Referee 1 (!)

      • InterstingTimes
        Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 5:59 AM | Permalink


        From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk]
        Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:25 AM
        To: Glenn McGregor
        Subject: RE: Update on response to Douglass et al.

        Regarding reviewers, I could certainly help out by finding some willing and available… Francis Zwiers might be willing to look at it, and I there are various other people quite independent from either Santer or Douglass.

  36. Sean Inglis
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 5:58 AM | Permalink


    Not sure if this fits the bill, but discussion of review of code and data for MBH98 where an “independent” arbitrator is suggested:

    “the arbiter must be a bona fide, highly respected statistician and one with some experience in climate science — OF YOUR CHOICE.” (his emphasis)

    c.f. “this is a purely statistical issue”

  37. Rog Tallbloke
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 6:19 AM | Permalink

    #3673 further reference to the Courtillot et al paper reviewed by Phil Jones
    Further discussion of this mail at my site:

  38. andy
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 7:24 AM | Permalink


    Dear Dr. Briffa:

    Would you be willing to review a Comment and a Reply that have been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters? The Comment is on a published article written by McIntyre and McKitrick entitled “Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance.” The text of the Comment and Reply totals 7 double-spaced pages.

  39. Sean Inglis
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 7:34 AM | Permalink


    Phil Jones -> Kevin Trenberth

    “Just heard that Peter Thorne’s HadAT paper has been accepted. Revision accepted in 48hrs by JGR. Editor said major revision (like your GRL paper), but this was major.

    Can’t have gone back to reviewers !”

  40. Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 10:12 AM | Permalink


    date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:59:51 +0000
    from: Tim Osborn
    subject: Re: Science paper
    to: Henry Pollack ,Keith Briffa

    Thanks for you congratulations, Henry, and also for your helpful
    review. Sorry that our response to your main concern (about the need
    to consider *causes* of warming/cooling) was limited to a paragraph
    at the end of the supplementary information, but we were space-limited!

    Best regards


    At 14:51 15/02/2006, Henry Pollack wrote:
    >Hi Tim and Keith,
    >Congratulations on your recent paper appearing in Science on 10
    >February 2006. I was one of the reviewers (see attached), and
    >appreciated your approach to quantifying the spatial extent of
    >climatic excursions.

  41. Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 10:22 AM | Permalink

    Off topic, I’m afraid, but I just discovered that Ian (harry) Harris is/was the Election Agent for the Norwich Green Party and did not want his connection with UEA/CRU broadcast.

    See 4648.txt

  42. DGH
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 10:44 AM | Permalink


    At 10:24 15/04/2008, Gerard van der Schrier wrote to Keith Briffa:

    “About the Int.J.Clim. paper: I’ve gone through the remarks you made and which you send me. There are some issues the referees raised, like the infilling of data, which are solved easily. We just have to put more emphasis on the remark we made that infilling is only used for T, the places where P is infilled are flagged as absent and not used in the analysis. I expect that other points are (nearly) as easy.”

  43. John Norris
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 10:52 AM | Permalink


    date: Wed Jun 25 14:57:44 2003
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: RE: Regarding paper submitted to The Holocene
    to: “Isaksson, Elisabeth”


  44. Sean Inglis
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 12:51 PM | Permalink

    snip – I’m really just interested in who did the reviews and of whom. Database stuff. Issues come later.

  45. Sean Inglis
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 1:11 PM | Permalink


    (not review based, so do snip, but…)

    Phil Jones -> Rick Plitz

    “The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980’s”

  46. Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 3:38 PM | Permalink

    Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

    Naughty FOIA hasn’t be listening to that, have they.

  47. Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

    Savva and Berninger submission to Nature Geoscience (Heike Langenburg) in 2008
    Review was Briffa, plus he handed it to an unidentified colleague.

  48. Kan
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 4:05 PM | Permalink

    #1862 Briffa reviews Shaopeng Huang paper
    date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:18 -0400
    from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org
    subject: Review Received by Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres
    to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk

    Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres

    Title: “On reconciliation of borehole and proxy based temperature reconstructions over the last five centuries”

    Author: Shaopeng Huang

    Review comments included. Briffa recommends rejection

    • Kan
      Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

      #0670.txt is the initial request from editor Alan Robock to Briffa for the above review.

  49. Alix James
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 4:22 PM | Permalink


    date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:40:44 +0100
    from: “R Warren”
    subject: ESF proposal
    to: “‘Mike Hulme'”


    I have to list three referees : since most of the people we’d choose are
    actually IN the proposal or are proposed participants … may need to
    choose others. However it doesn’t actually SAY that they can’t be
    participants or even that they must be independent. But I was thinking
    of listing Steve Schneider
    and Hadi Dowlatabadi. I need a third. Might
    they feel excluded from the workshop though? There wasn’t budget to fly
    in people from the US. Perhaps a third referee could be Jan since he is
    not actually involved? (Although his insititution is involved).

    Also there is an opportunity to list someone NOT to referee the
    proposal, in strict confidence! Richard Tol?!

    Your thoughts?

  50. Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

    Cook to Hughes and sundry, in regard to a paper submitted to IJC by Schofield and Barker critical of hockey stick

    Hi Malcolm,

    I’m on the case as it were. It is another “attack the hockey stick and throw out
    all prior tree ring work in the process” paper by the look of it. Pretty naive
    at that level. I am reviewing the paper submitted to IJC. Schofield is at
    Columbia in the Stats Dept, but I don’t know him. I am discussing this with
    Manu Lall as well who is an expert on Hierarchical Bayes. So when I get back to
    Lamont on May 6 I will sort this matter out in better detail.



    So much for respecting the confidentiality of the review process.

    • Jean S
      Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

      Re: Ross McKitrick (Nov 24 17:12),

      Interesting, there is an entry on the department page of Richard Barker:

      Schofield, M. R. and Barker, R. J. Seeing the climate for the trees: a look at climate reconstruction. Submitted to: International journal of Climatology March 2008.

      However, IJC, Barker’s personal page or Schofield’s page do not mention the paper (or anything alike). So I suppose that after the treatment of the statistical experts listed as recepients in Cook’s email the authors decided to abandon the paper … I would still love to read it and definitely hear the story of its “peer” review!

      • Jean S
        Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

        Re: Jean S (Nov 24 18:09),

        aha, the story is continuing in #2098 and #4641, maybe there is a happy ending after all 😉

  51. mitchel44
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM | Permalink


    Briffa turning Consequences of larch budmoth outbreaks on the climate significance of ring width and stable isotopes in larch by Weidner et al. down from the Holocene.

    Includes all the comments on the paper

    Reviewers – not stated
    manuscript – Weidner et al, Consequences of larch budmoth outbreaks on the climate significance of ring width and stable isotopes in larch
    Result – declined

  52. David Smith
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

    Early Mann thoughts on M&M:

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Ray Bradley , “Malcolm Hughes” , Mike MacCracken , Steve Schneider , tom crowley , Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck , asocci@cox.net, Michael Oppenheimer , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Tim_Profeta@lieberman.senate.gov, Ben Santer , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , “Lonnie G. Thompson” , Kevin Trenberth
    Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
    Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:44 -0500
    Cc: mann@virginia.edu

    Dear All,
    This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
    Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that
    “Energy and Environment” is being run by the baddies–only a shill for industry would have
    republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to “Climate Research” without
    even editing it. Now apparently they’re at it again…
    My suggested response is:
    1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called “journal” which is already known to
    have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we
    know has been asked to “review” this so-called paper
    2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by
    numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
    Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual
    suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. 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..
    Thanks for your help,

    two people have a forthcoming ‘Energy & Environment’ paper that’s being unveiled tomoro
    (monday) that — in the words of one Cato / Marshall/ CEI type — “will claim that Mann
    arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for
    missing values that dramatically affected his results.
    When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
    substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th
    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….”

    Professor Michael E. Mann
    Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
    University of Virginia
    Charlottesville, VA 22903

  53. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    From CG1:

    Email – 1-311 . 1051915601 2003-05-02
    Editor- Briffa
    Journal – Holocene
    Reviewer – Mann
    Manuscript – Gil-Alana (fractionally integrated techniques used to show increased persistence in global temperature record in 20th century).

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM | Permalink

      Email -680
      Date. 2003-06-04
      Editor – Briffa
      Reviewer – Cook
      Manuscript _Using a New 672-Year Tree-Ring Drought Reconstruction from
      West-Central Montana to Evaluate Severe Drought Teleconnections in
      the Western U.S. and Possible Climatic Forcing by the Pacific Decadal
      Oscillation” by D.A. Hunzicker and P. Camill

      Here is my review. I must admit to not being quite as negative about
      it as Stahle, but I do feel that it is marginal at best and could be
      justifiably rejected. Read my review. Of course, you will want to cut
      out the review and send it to the authors as a separate document.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 10:45 PM | Permalink

        Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:50:27 -0400
        Editor: Olsen.Tony
        reviewer: Edward Cook
        manuscript – Yoo and Wright paper.
        Review copied to Briffa

  54. Kermit
    Posted Nov 24, 2011 at 11:51 PM | Permalink

    Using “reject” as a search term comes up with a big list.


    cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
    date: Tue Jan 15 14:49:24 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: Edouard Bard
    to: mann@psu.edu
    Good triumphs over bad – eventually!
    It does take a long time though!
    Maybe Ray P. wants to do something. He is more up to speed
    on all this – and reads French!
    At 14:33 15/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote:
    thanks for sending on, I’ve sent to Ray P. The Passoti piece is remarkably bad for a
    Science “news” piece, it would be worth discussing this w/ the editor, Donald Kennedy
    who is quite reasonable, and probably a bit embarrassed by this.

    My french isn’t great, but I could see there was something also about the Moberg
    reconstructions, Courtilot obviously trying to use that to arge that the recent warming
    isn’t anomalous (even though the Moberg recon actually supports that it is).
    I’ll need to read over all of this and try to digest when I have a chance later today.
    Keep up the good fight, the attacks are getting more and more desparate as the
    contrarians are increasingly losing the battle (both scientifically, and in the public
    sphere). one thing I’ve learned is that the best way to deal w/ these attacks is just to
    go on doing good science, something I learned from Ben…
    talk to you later,
    Well, the Phil Jones wrote:
    Gavin, Mike,
    Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert.
    Maybe you’re aware but things in France are getting bad.
    One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science.
    I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn’t persuade him it was rubbish.
    isn’t the worst – see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard. My French is
    at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard.
    See also this in French about me – lucky I can’t follow it that well !
    I know all this is a storm in a teacup – and I hope I’d show your resilience Mike if
    this was directed at me. I’m just happy I’m in the UK, and our Royal Society knows
    who and why it appoints its fellows!
    In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal
    rejection emails – the other reviewer wasn’t quite as strong as mine, but they were


  55. Dishman
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 12:19 AM | Permalink

    date: Fri Jan 30 08:27:28 2004
    from: Phil Jones <
    subject: FYI – Confidential of course
    to: k.briffa, t.osborn

    Fwd of MMann e-mail:
    …Hi phil,
    thanks again–wow, there is a lot going on I wasn't even aware of. Thanks for keeping me
    posted. Meanwhile, MM have submitted a comment to Nature and we have already written a
    reply. I thought I had sent to you, but if not here (confidentially) is their comment
    and our reply…

  56. Kan
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM | Permalink

    cc: Edward Cook
    date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:59:51 -0400
    from: Edward Cook
    subject: Fwd: 2007JD008705 (Editor – John Austin): Review Overdue – First
    to: Keith Briffa

    Title: “Simulation of ENSO forcings on U.S. drought by the HadCM3 coupled climate model.”

    Authors: Simon Busby, Keith Briffa, and Timothy Osborn

    Journal: Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres

    Message from Cook to Briffa “As you can see,
    I am slowly winding my way towards reviewing Simon’s paper.
    Will do so by next week.”

  57. Kan
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 12:55 AM | Permalink

    #0938 Rejection letter from Ruth Lieberman Editor, JGR-Atmospheres to Osborn and Wallace. This one is interesting because it seems to have died with this letter from May 2005. However, it listed on the home page of Osborn on 11/24/2011 as under the Under Review/Submitted category to JGR-Atmoshperes with no date. This gives the impression that it is still in the peer review process.


    Reviews and ratings included in email.

  58. Kan
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 2:19 AM | Permalink

    Osborn’s review of paper by Nathan P. Gillet et.al.
    Nathan P. Gillet is editor of Journal of Climate.

    date: Mon Jun 11 13:06:54 2001
    from: Tim Osborn
    subject: review of JD/2001/000589
    to: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org, jgrd@dao.gsfc.nasa.gov

    “Dear Steven,

    Here is my belated review of the manuscript by Gillet et al.
    “How linear is the Arctic Oscillation response to greenhouse gases?”.
    Overall, the manuscript presents some interesting new results,
    inter-model comparisons and provides some discussion of the
    possible physical/dynamical mechanisms that may be important
    in generating the behaviour of the Arctic Oscillation in response
    to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. This is certainly
    appropriate subject matter for JGR-Atmospheres, and the overall
    method and data are adequately used. I would recommend publication
    in JGR-Atmospheres, after addressing the minor comments that I
    outline below.”

    More review comments in email.


  59. py
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 3:26 AM | Permalink

    5332 31 Mar 08

    Ed Cook reviewing a paper for IJC. Tells Malcolm Bradley that he’s ‘on the case as it were’

  60. Buffy Minton
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    Briffa unofficially reviews something being “reviewed” by Ed Cook


    date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:09:04 -0400
    from: Edward Cook <
    subject: REALLY URGENT for you too!!!
    to: Keith Briffa

    Hi Keith,

    This is not terribly kosher, but I am sending you the paper I am
    reviewing that attempts to destroy dendroclimatology as presently
    done, and my present review of it. This does not have to be sent in
    until next week sometime, so there is time for you to add any
    comments. Doing this is justified in my view because the authors use
    your Tornetrask reconstruction as the main whipping boy. The paper is
    rather mathematical in parts, but the bias they show in condemning
    the standard method of climate reconstruction is pretty apparent. I
    don’t know if there is a hidden agenda or just an effort on their
    part to show us dumb asses how to do it right! Anyway, give me a call
    at home tomorrow if you wish, but certainly read what I have sent you
    and please recommend changes or additions.



    P.S. Please keep this confidential for now since it is a paper under review.

    Dr. Edward R. Cook
    Doherty Senior Scholar and
    Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory
    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
    Palisades, New York 10964 USA

  61. Buffy Minton
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    Keith is your go-to man for impartial reviews!


    Date: Tue Sep 29 15:47:15 1998
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Re: reference
    to: “Raymond S. Bradley”

    Dear Ray
    thanks a million for the reference. I am sending the proposal for your files. It is rather a large file ( only because of the Figures – the text is only 9 pages total ) so I am sending it zipped. If you have a problem reading it – assuming you wish to- I’ll fax it. As for the reference to your book , I still await this as I am supposedly reviewing it for The Holocene. It is of course comforting to know that I will be able to give it the rich praise that I know it will deserve. Best wishes to you and I look forward to sharing a good bottle ( no , a very good bottle) of red wine with you – perhaps even at NERC’s expense!

    At 06:22 PM 9/28/98 -0400, you wrote:
    >I sent the attached to sholt@nerc…today as an attachment. Will mail the
    >original tomorrow. Good luck with this!
    >Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\briffa-nerc.doc”
    >Raymond S. Bradley
    >Professor and Head of Department
    >Department of Geosciences
    >University of Massachusetts
    >Amherst, MA 01003-5820

  62. Alix James
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM | Permalink

    #3003 (This email also has a trip to Greece AND Aspen, data quality concerns AND a slag against CA – thought it should go here though)

    “Phil Jones said the following on 7/2/2007 5:43 AM:


    Our librarian (who only works Thursday pm) wonders if there will ever be hard copy versions printed by NOAA. He is great at looking after our library, but I think he wants to fill in a foot of space with these books if they are to appear.

    I’m often getting my knuckles wrapped for putting books back in the wrong place !

    I see CA is getting a head of steam up with people emailing NOAA about IPCC and also about US HCN. There was on comment that was amusing and stupid. If a US HCN observer denies permission for CA to take pictures of the site, then the data should be withdrawn !! I see they are trying to get NOAA to say who withdrew the access to certain files with locations and observer names on them.

    By the way, I have got the paper – review will be friendly though!

    Got back from a weekend in Greece, talking to some politicians about climate change. Armed guards at Norwich airport on my return ! The times we live in……

    Cheers Phil”


    “date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:48:06 -0400
    from: Thomas C Peterson
    subject: Re: WWR Volumes for the 1990s
    to: Phil Jones

    Hi, Phil,

    A weekend in Greece sounds lovely.

    I just double checked and no, there is no hard copy version of WWR planned.

    There is a CD version available with software to bring up the data for one station at a time, but no book.

    Dick just told me that one of my concerns about ERSST verified while I was in Aspen: the climatology used can make a big difference, not globally, but in at least one particular location. So we’re still working at improving the product.

    When I talked to the NWS, they said that the CIO of NOAA decided it would violate privacy laws if they allowed the name and address of observers be made public & the same is true of photos of the station if it showed any of the observer’s house or a well-known landmark. ‘Tis rough when we’re attacked for following the law.

    One Congressman has requested information about USHCN that sounds straight out of CA. He requested copies of paper metadata. Our calculation is that this would be a total of 65,000 pages of information (all of which requires us to black out the observer’s personal information prior to providing it).

    Regards, Tom”

  63. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    I appreciate your enthusiasm, but what this thread is supposed to collect is information about JOURNAL reviews, not opinions in general.

    • Alix James
      Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

      Appreciated, I hope this all helps. I’ll be sure to get it better next time, and thanks for all this. I can realize how inundated you’ve been this week.

  64. Don McIlvin
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM | Permalink

    1695.txt sort of relates to this topic.

    snip – there’s no need to paste emails or post up commentary. I want contributions to lists of reviewers only.

  65. Harold
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 6:04 PM | Permalink

    #3981 Santer>McGregor
    Reviewer #2
    Reviewee Santer

    10 Jul 2008

  66. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 9:36 PM | Permalink

    Email – 198. 2006-04-13
    Journal of Climate
    Reviewer -Osborn
    Editor -Weaver
    Manuscript – Zorita et al Comment on Mann et al and Mann et al Reply

  67. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    635. 2006-07-31
    Quaternary Science Reviews
    Editor – Claude Hillaire-Marcel
    Reviewer – Briffa
    Title: On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests:
    A Review of the Tree-Ring Evidence and Possible Causes
    Quaternary Science Reviews

  68. Kan
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

    #1909 Jones reviewed manuscript

    date: Mon Jun 2 14:13:19 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: RE: Nature Geoscience Review Request – manuscript
    to: “Newton, Alicia”

    Title:”Impact of volcanic forcing on tropical temperatures during the last four centuries”

    Authors: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Rob Wilson, and Alexander Tudhope

    Editor: Alicia Newton
    Pubilication: Nature Geoscience

  69. Sean Inglis
    Posted Nov 25, 2011 at 10:43 PM | Permalink


    Bob Davis -> Hans von Storch (wrt fallout from Soon & Baliunas)

    “It has yet to be demonstrated to me that there is any problem. A paper has been published that some people disagree with…the authors have responded.

    Isn’t this the nature of the scientific process that has worked just fine for centuries?

    I cannot agree with your editorial since, in my view, there is no problem with the peer-review process.”

  70. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 26, 2011 at 5:25 AM | Permalink

    # 4862 Briffa & Mann Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:11:49 -0500
    about “We had specifically discussed this in Bern and decided
    >> that Zwiers could more objectively reflect that group than either
    >> Zorita for Von Storch who have been involved in ad hominem public
    >> attacks against us”

    Mann does a bully, refuses cooperation and Briffa crawls back “> We simply will not allow you to withdraw . You know perfectly well
    > that you are too important in all this to take such action. If it
    > requires my talking to Eduardo and getting him to withdraw , then so
    > be it. “

  71. Kan
    Posted Nov 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

    #1081 A request for Briffa to review

    Title: “A matter of divergence – tracking recent warming at hemispheric scales using tree-ring data”
    Authors Rob Wilson, Rosanne D’Arrigo, Brendan Buckley, Ulf
    Büntgen, Jan Esper, David Frank, Brian Luckman, Serge
    Payette, Russell S. Vose, and Don Youngblut

    Ediotr: Ruth Lieberman


    #0211 Briffa informs Simon Busby he is reviewing the above paper.

    cc: Tim Osborn
    date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:18:29 +0000
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Re: Paper and Mexico meeting
    to: “Simon”

  72. Kan
    Posted Nov 26, 2011 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    #4109 Briffa is a reviewer

    date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:37:00 -0400
    from: jgr-atmospheres
    subject: Re: 2005JD006352 Review Overdue – Third notice
    to: Keith Briffa

    Title: “”On the Long-Term Context for Late 20th Century Warming”
    Authors: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Robert Wilson, Gordon Jacoby
    Editor:>> John Austin


  73. Posted Nov 26, 2011 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, not quite what you are looking for, but a back story around the editor of the Soon & Baliunas paper:


    It is the story of a plot by the ‘team’ to get Chris de Freitas sacked for allowing ‘contrary’ articles to be published in journal of Climate Research. In addition to key member of the team being involved, Pachauri is copied in as cc in many of the most outrageous comments. He does nothing to stop his out of control ‘leading scientists’.

    Perhaps your incisive analysis could add to it? May be of some use?

  74. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Nov 26, 2011 at 10:38 PM | Permalink

    # 4616

    date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:36:44 -0400
    from: “Michael E. Mann” >
    subject: Re: Your letter to Science
    to: Edward Cook Malcolm Hughes

    It will take some time to digest these comments, but my initial response is one of some
    disappointment. I will resist the temptation to make the letter to Science available to the
    others on this list, because of my fears of violating the embargo policy (I know examples
    of where doing so has led to Science retracting a piece form publication). So thanks for
    also resisting the temptation to do so… (More follows)

  75. Kan
    Posted Nov 27, 2011 at 2:01 AM | Permalink

    #4921 Briffa provides short negative review

    date: Thu Apr 24 15:42:36 2003
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Re: Can you provide a brief comment if not full review?
    to: Keith Alverson

    Decription:”recent decoupling of temperature and tree ring
    indicese in high latitude eurasia”

    Editor: Solomina/Alverson
    Journal: PAGES – Paleo3

  76. Kan
    Posted Nov 28, 2011 at 2:35 AM | Permalink

    #3852 Jones requests Henry Diaz to review an article submitted to “The Holocene”.

    cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
    date: Wed Mar 19 16:23:26 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Other possible reviewers
    to: “Matthews J.A.”

    Author list: Jones, Briffa, Schmidt, Mann etc.

    Article appears to be this one

    #4274 Jones has recieved Diaz review. The ariticle will be accepted.
    cc: mann@psu.edu
    date: Wed Jun 4 09:23:19 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: A couple of things
    to: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov

    Two blind revieweres involved.

  77. DR_UK
    Posted Nov 28, 2011 at 5:43 PM | Permalink

    Fri Jul 22 16:03:58 2005

    Phil Jones wrote:
    Whilst in Exeter, I got this from Peter Thorne (who is reviewing it for
    Peter went on about not passing this on to anyone else and also what
    Ch 3 should be concluding about the whole LT issue and what CCSP says.
    I felt what he was saying was far too strong, so won’t go into it.

  78. Kan
    Posted Nov 29, 2011 at 12:15 AM | Permalink

    #2922 Crowley Reviews Briffa et. al. 2000

    cc: tcrowley@ocean.tamu.edu
    date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:52:26 -0500
    from: tom crowley
    subject: Briffa et al review JGRd2000R306
    to: jgr@gaia.envsci.Rutgers.EDU

    Journal: JGR

  79. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Nov 29, 2011 at 2:12 AM | Permalink


    Reviewee—Yuliya Savva and Frank Berninger
    Subject—-Sulphur deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal forests in Eurasia”

    Note: An explanation for the reduced growth in Northern Eurasia pine trees post 1950.


  80. Bob Koss
    Posted Nov 29, 2011 at 2:26 PM | Permalink

    Just to inject a little levity into the thread. 😉

    It seems Phil reviewed the Hack before it was done.

    date: Mon Oct 19 09:19:37 2009
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Review of the Hack proposal
    to: “Bamzai, Anjuli”


    Here is the review and also the signed non-conflict page.

  81. Kan
    Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 5:15 PM | Permalink

    # 3323 Regarding review of the Man EOS 03 paper:

    From: Ellen Mosley-Thompson
    Subject: Re: position paper by Mann,
    Bradley et al that is a refutation to Soon et al
    To: Judy Jacobs , “Michael E. Mann”
    Judy and Mike –
    This sounds outstanding. Am I right in assuming that Fred reviews and approves the Forum pieces? If so, can you hint about expediting this. Timing is very critical here. Judy, thanks for taking the bull by the horns and getting the ball rolling.

    Best regards,

  82. DR_UK
    Posted Dec 4, 2011 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

    [This email includes two reviews of a paper submitted to Science – I suppose the paper concerned is Jones, PD, Osborn, TJ and Briffa, KR (2001) The evolution of climate over the last millennium. Science, 292. pp. 662-667]

    Fri, 09 Feb 2001
    from: Phil Jones to
    Julia Uppenbrink, Senior Editor, Science

    Review 1:
    This ms. is excellent and merits publication as is. In face of the ongoing
    discussion about the recent global warming and its cause(s), this paper
    provides the necessary critical review of the records to address the
    The much quoted Mann et al. paper (Nature 1998) was critizised for the lack
    of such a discussion, and I am profoundly thankful for Briffa et al to have
    taken the time to correct the situation. With this publication the climate
    interpretations with respect to the last two decades and their cause can
    no longer be denied.

    Review 2:
    This is an excellent summary of the state of our knowledge, at present, of
    climate during the past millennium. I think that the tone of the article and
    level of detail are appropriate for a Science review article. The authors
    have done a thorough job of reviewing the recent progress in proxy-based
    climate reconstructions of the past several centuries-to-millennium, and
    have placed appropriate emphasis on regional variations and patterns, as
    well as hemispheric/global indices of climate change. There is a good
    balance between discussing what is known, and acknowledging the significant
    uncertainties that still remain. I encourage publication with only some
    very minor revisions. Some specific comments/suggestions are indicated below.

    Given the very close overlap in content, it would be appropriate for the
    authors to cross-refer to a very similar review article in the press and due
    out soon in the journal “Weather” published by the Royal Meteorological
    Society [Mann, M.E., Climate During the Past Millennium, Weather, in
    press, 2001].

  83. Posted Dec 5, 2011 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:35:39 +0100
    from: Martin Juckes
    subject: Re: Mitrie
    to: Anders Moberg

    ” Delete the references to Mann et al.
    > 2003a,b and Soon et al 2003 here. More relevant references are e.g.
    > Esper et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, Burger and Cubasch 2005, von
    > Storch et al. 2006 (Science 312, p.529; Response to Comment on…) and
    > Mann et al. 2007 (a new paper which we definitely should refer to -”

    Regardless of the fact the paper was submitted in 2006…

    • Posted Dec 5, 2011 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

      Another in this chain:

      from: Martin Juckes
      subject: Mitrie


      I hadn’t noticed that Eduardo’s email asking to be taken off the author list
      only came to me . It arrived last Friday just before I left for the airport;
      here is the relevant quote:

      “I have been reading the last version of the mitrie paper yesterday.
      Unfortunately, I found too many places in the manuscript with wich I
      agree, in particular in the conclusions and in section 4,

      • Tom Anderson
        Posted Jan 4, 2012 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

        Much earlier (August 2006) in the chain in regards to Mitrie: 0193

        An inline response to Eduardo Zorita’s comments.

  84. Posted Dec 5, 2011 at 4:44 PM | Permalink


    date: Fri, 11 May 2007 19:21:20 UT
    from: REDACTED
    subject: 2007GL030571 (Editor – James Famiglietti): Request to Review from
    Dear Dr. Jones:
    Would you be willing and available to review “Adjustment for proxy number and coherence in
    a large-scale temperature reconstruction” by David Frank, Jan Esper, and Edward Cook,
    submitted for possible publication in the Geophysical Research Letters. This is a
    resubmission of a rejected manuscript which you previously reviewed.

    Jones dealing with the Cook mutineers…

  85. Posted Dec 5, 2011 at 5:18 PM | Permalink


    date: Tue Nov 9 07:43:28 2004
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: J Climate review ( JCL-5363)
    to: Beth white

    I am able to do the review, so send the URL and id. The time frame shouldn’t present a
    problem. It will be useful paper to review as I’m involved in the relevant chapter of the
    WGI report.
    At 20:54 08/11/2004, you wrote:

    David Randall, an Editor of Journal of Climate, has suggested you as a possible reviewer
    for a paper entitled “Urban heat island assessment: Metadata are important” (JCL-5363)
    by Thomas C. Peterson and Timothy W. Owen.

    Jones keeping a hand on the UHI tiller…

  86. Posted Dec 10, 2011 at 7:05 AM | Permalink


    Briffa Nature Geoscience
    Sulphur deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal
    forests in Eurasia

    Probably junk but helps with ‘the decline’ so got published anyway:


  87. Posted Dec 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM | Permalink


    Phil Jones gets testy with Glenn McGregor and threatens not to submit papers to IJC anymore after they reject his paper.

    “Perturbing a
    >>Weather Generator using factors developed from
    >>Regional Climate Model simulations”

  88. Kan
    Posted Dec 11, 2011 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    #0497 Jones tells Mann that Bradley had reviewed Jones 1998 Halocene paper

    date: Thu, 06 May 1999 17:37:34 +0100
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Straight to the Point
    to: mann@snow.geo.umass.edu

    Publication: The Holocene May 1998 vol. 8 no. 4 455-471

    Title: “High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures”

    Authors: Jones, Briffa, Barnet, Tett

    “I would suspect that you’ve been unhappy about us coming out
    with a paper going back 1000 years only a few months after
    your Nature paper (back to 1400). Ray knew all about this as
    he was one of the reviewers.”

One Trackback

  1. […] Discussion of Reviews […]

%d bloggers like this: