Peer Review of Enhanced Hide-the-Decline

During the counter-attack on Soon et al 2003, Climategate participants made serious allegations about the integrity of its peer review and the editor (Chris de Freitas) who had supervised its publication. (These allegations were investigated by the publisher of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, who cleared de Freitas in unequivocal terms – a finding that did not convince the Climategate scientists. This is a topic that I will discuss on another occasion.)

In today’s post, I’m going to examine information from the Climategate emails on the peer review of Mann et al 2003. Given the serious allegations being leveled against the peer review of Soon et al 2003, one would presume that the Climategate correspondents would ensure that the peer review process for Mann et al (EOS 2003) would be not only meticulous, but antiseptic.

But was it?

For example, we know that the reviewers of Mann et al 2003 did not catch either its enhanced hide-the-decline, its failure to disclose enhanced hide-the-decline or the deceptive captioning in the primary figure used to “discredit” Soon et al. Obviously reviewers cannot be expected to be omniscient, but were they diligent and independent?

The EOS editor, who handled Mann et al 2003, was Ellen Moseley-Thompson, the wife of notorious non-archiver Lonnie Thompson.

In March 2003, when the idea of responding to Soon et al 2003 was first mooted (email 3366), Crowley suggested a comment in EOS (rather than the logical Climate Research). Mann observed that both Moseley-Thompson and Keith Alverson were editors of EOS and could be expected to be “receptive” to such a submission, as, indeed, proved the case. However, after Mann, Bradley and others discussed the matter further in Nice in early April, they decided not to respond, presumably to avoid “legitimizing” the article.

In April, Moseley-Thompson was a party (along with Pachauri and others) to the lengthy email correspondence (1999,3052, 2469 and others), where serious allegations were made against the integrity of the peer review process at Climate Research in respect to Soon et al.

In April and May, Soon et al attracted some media interest, with articles mentioning it in the Telegraph in the UK and the Age in Australia. It also attracted interest among U.S. Republicans, especially Inhofe. In May, Mann and Michael Oppenheimer prepared a talking-points memorandum against Soon et al for use by media and politicians, which Mann sent to Moseley-Thompson in early June. On June 3, at Moseley-Thompson’s request, Judy Jacobs, editor of EOS, invited Mann to write up these talking-points for EOS (email 3323). Jacobs drew Mann’s attention to the AGU Position Statement on climate change, observing that, since Soon et al article had not been published in EOS, the authors would have to “minimize” references to the target article:

AGU has an official Position Statement, “Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases,” which states, among other things, that there is a high probability that man-made gases primarily from the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to a gradual rise in mean globab temperatures. In this context, your proto-article—in the form of the attachment you sent me– would seem right on target for a Forum piece. However, since the Soon et al. article wasn’t actually published in Eos, anything that you and Dr. Bradley craft will have to minimize reference to the specific article or articles, and concentrate on “the science” that is set forth in these papers. Presumably this problem could be solved by simply referencing these papers.

Less than an hour later (3323), Moseley-Thompson expressed her satisfaction to both Jacobs and Mann on their progress in an email that, despite Jacobs’ caveat about “minimizing” references to Soon et al, bore a subject line of being a “refutation to Soon et al”. Moseley-Thompson told Jacobs that timing was critical and urged her to expedite matters.

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,

Mann relayed the prospect of fast-track publication in EOS to core associates: Bradley, Jones, Briffa, Wigley, Crowley, Trenberth, Overpeck, Oppenheimer, Rutherford. (Hughes was inadvertently left off the invitation and was added as co-author to the proofs after the article had been accepted.) In the morning of June 4, Jones signed up for participation, quickly followed by the others.

The article was pulled together with great speed. Mann sent out a first draft later the same day (June 4 – CG1 322. 1054757526.txt). There is extensive correspondence on the preparation of this article over the next two days.

On June 7, less than 3 days after receiving the first draft, Crowley sent some sensible comments, some of which Mann brushed off as being “very late” in the game:

Unfortunately,you arrived very late in the game. Not your fault, but it does make it difficult to incorporate a number of your suggestions at this very late stage.

On Tuesday, June 10, the coauthors continued to be busy editing the article. Primary responsibility passed from Mann to Jones, since Mann was leaving on Wednesday, June 11 to get married. Nonetheless, on the eve of his departure, Mann was still busy editing the text of the article (2945).

On or about June 10, Jones distributed the latest draft (CG1 -327. 1055512559), reporting a change to Figure 1. Their target date for submission was June 12, with Jones advising coauthor Overpeck that he had two days to say yes/no. On June 13 (CG1-327), the authors were still debating details – Wigley sent an email to Jones worrying about the poor correlation between the Greenland isotope series and temperature, with Jones responding with reassurances.

On June 17 (2530), Jones confirmed to the now newly-married Mann that Moseley-Thompson had the EOS article. Jones and Mann discussed the replacement of a Briffa series with the more hockey-stick shaped Yang series.

On the UK morning of June 18, Jones wrote the co-authors advising them that the EOS article was “currently with AGU and should go soon to Ellen Mosley-Thompson for assessment/reviewing”. Jones notified the co-authors of the pending publication of Mann and Jones 2003, for which they had just received acceptance subject to revisions. Jones said that he was “in discussion with AGU and Ellen about co-ordination as this should increase the impact of both pieces”.

Moseley-Thompson had asked editor Jacobs to expedite matters and did so herself, accepting the submission later that same day (CG1 – 329. 1056440026.txt) asking only for very minor formatting changes. No petty questions about hide-the-decline.

Dear Dr. Mann: (copy to Phil Jones)
I am pleased to accept “On Past Temperatures and Anomalous late-20th Century Warmth” for publication in Eos with the provision that in your final submission you modify to the first paragraph slightly so that it is fully consistent with the text of the AGU statement on climate change and greenhouse gases:

Note that first sentence of your paper indicates that the AGU statement includes the inference that there is a high probability …. I cannot find the words high probability in the AGU statement (unlike IPCC that does state “high probability.”). It is critical that the introductory paragraph is carefully constructed so as not to diminish any of the points you make in the Forum piece. I suggest a modification of your first paragraph – please feel free to further modify this.

Evidence from …. Gases,” that there is a compelling basis for concern over future climate changes, including increases in global mean surface temperatures, due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily from fossil fuel burning

If this is too long, you might wish to break it into two sentences. This says the same thing as your original intro sentence but is fully consistent with the text of the AGU statement.

Also in the first paragraph would you agree to this change?
… such anomalous warm cannot be fully explained natural factors …… (Added the word “fully” to indicate that some but not all of the anomalous warming can be explained by natural factors.)

Another suggestion is to remove the second reference to the AGU policy (second paragraph). What about … these claims in light of the fact that they have ……

The content of the Forum piece is just fine, but I did find a few minor problems that you need to fix in the final submission.
1) 3rd paragraph line 8 – reference to Jones et al. (1998) – this date occurs in several places in the paper and should be Jones et al. 1999; e.g., point (2) line 3
2) page 2 – the second (2) point last 3 lines: remove double period after U.S.; also that sentence reads awkwardly – try a comma after the word ‘cancelling’.
3) the second paragraph of point 2 (2); last three lines: this is awkward; the word “apparent” is out of place; I think this should this read ….. apparent coldness and warmth differ …..
4) point 3) last line of first paragraph – change … insight to …. (Remove in from into)
5) references – the Jones et al. 1999 reference is formatted differently than the rest (put date at end).

Finally – everywhere throughout the text et al should be corrected to et al (The period is consistently absent)

Before publication, your article will be edited to reflect the Eos newspaper style, including a possible change in the headline. We will send the edited version to you for review and final approval before the article is published.

Please note that before we can proceed with production work on your submission, a copyright transfer agreement and reprint order form must be completed and returned to AGU. These forms may be printed* from the AGU web site …

In the absence of information from you to the contrary, I am assuming that all authors listed on the manuscript concur with publication in its final accepted form and that neither this manuscript nor any of its essential components have been published previously or submitted to another journal. The AGU Guidelines for Publication emphasize that: “It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication.”

Thank you for your contribution to Eos.
Ellen Mosley-Thompson
Editor, Eos

They resubmitted with the very slight changes on June 20. There was a slight glitch as they seem to have resubmitted directly to Moseley-Thompson, rather than the online AGU system, remedied on June 23 (email 2670).

Subsequent to acceptance, as noted a few days ago, Mann et al substituted the Yang series for a long Briffa chronology in their Figure 2 and, in addition, added the Mann and Jones 2003 strand to their spaghetti graph in Figure 1. On June 26, acceptance was complete – AGU sent an invoice to Mann and coauthors for reprints.

The article was issued with an accompanying AGU press release on July 7. Leifert of AGU reported to Mann(1811):

We issued the press release at 3:40 p.m. EDT Monday, July 7. It was sent to 900 science writers worldwide on our distribution list and posted on EurekAlert!, the AAAS web site for science press releases. Almost immediately, we received requests for the full article from The New York Times, USA Today, National Public Radio, Toronto Star, San Jose Mercury News, Cox Newspapers, Richmond Times-Dispatch, and four freelancers. It was too late for most Europeans to receive the release
Monday, so we expect additional requests Tuesday morning.

Leifert also reported (5047) to Jones and Mann that the article had been distributed to a Senate briefing on July 10:

Mike and Phil,
Perhaps more relevant than which media have already carried the story, copies of your Eos paper were distributed at a Senate briefing yesterday, and the minority (i.e., Democratic Party) staff is inviting Mike to appear at a hearing later in the month. (I trust Mike got and responded to the message??)

Mann had indeed got the message, replying (4664):

Thanks Harvey,
Yes, I’ve been in touch w/ a representative for the minority. I’m looking forward to doing this. Will keep you all posted of what happens,

On July 14, Moseley-Thompson wrote to Mann, saying that Soon had contacted AGU to question the peer review process, causing a giggle among Moseley-Thompson and the others:

I thought I would gag when I heard that Soon contacted AGU to question the nature of the review (to which your piece was subjected)

The Climategate-2 emails show the “nature of the review” quite clearly.

On a personal note, I might add that I did not receive similarly expedited treatment when I sought to respond to a defamatory article at EOS by Tom Crowley (for which Crowley has apologized privately, but not publicly.) EOS spent six months before getting a reviewer and, even though the reviewer conceded that I had legimitate grievances, Eos rejected the article as now being no longer newsworthy.


  1. JEM
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    So what we have here is a political briefing paper drafted upon the request of the Eos editors.

    Proofread, peer review, hey they both start with ‘P’, close enough for AGU I guess.

  2. theduke
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    Having put things in such meticulous context, the Mannians will have a difficult time accusing you of taking things out of context.

    But be prepared for it anyway.

    • JEM
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

      Yes, let’s see them claim that a veritable platoon of reviewers saw the thing between June 14 and June 18 and wanted nothing 😉

  3. kim
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    Think Leni.

  4. Dishman
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

    The last comment by Mosley-Thompson is from 0772.txt, and quoted in 3403.txt.

  5. Hu McCulloch
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    Eos itself describes itself as “a newpaper, not a research journal,” and does not say whether it is peer reviewed: .

    However, its electronic supplement does refer to “the high peer-review and editorial standards for which Eos is known”:

    This Eos electronic supplement provides more information about subjects that appear in the printed version of Eos. The supplement is a fully integrated part of Eos and is fully archived and referenceable. The high peer-review and editorial standards for which Eos is known also apply to the material in the supplement.

    It would be appropriate for Steve and/or FergalR to submit a comment to Eos pointing out the deceptive snip and what the unsnipped diagram should have looked.

    Ellen Moseley-Thompson is no longer on the board of editors, so such a note might actually have a chance. See

    • FergalR
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 3:30 PM | Permalink

      Hu McCulloch,
      Tempted as I am to become a Mystery Man; full credit goes to Steve. His trained eye could see there was something up before the “select by colour” tool pointed the specifics out to me.

      If protocol demands it I will be glad to submit a comment however. The treatment of Professor Soon and Dr. Baliunas was shameful – to put it lightly.

      Was the true identity of the Crowley & Lowery portion of the graph revealed? Tim Lambert suggested it was a Mann series +0.5 sigma? I’ve extracted it and 3 of the other lines from the Eos graph. The formatting isn’t perfect so if someone identifies it from my numbers they deserve a prize:

      • Hu McCulloch
        Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM | Permalink

        In any event, Steve (or Soon & Baliunas) should now call on Eos to retract Mann et 12 (2003). And if the new editors of Eos stand by it, the decision should be appealed to AGU, which perhaps is not dominated by climate people, and which at least has a pretense of scientific standards.

    • JEM
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

      Equally important is how others downstream of this publication have regarded it – if it received about the same vetting in the publication process as, say, your average Greenpeace press release then citations from it or references to it should carry similar authority.

    • Hu McCulloch
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 10:04 PM | Permalink

      Also pertinent is whether Eos is considered a “peer-reviewed journal” for IPCC purposes.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 1:22 AM | Permalink

        Re: Hu McCulloch (Dec 2 22:04),

        chapter 6 cited:
        Raymo, M.E., and G.H. Rau, 1992: Plio-Pleistocene atmospheric CO2
        levels inferred from POM δ13C at DSDP Site 607. Eos, 73, 95.

        They cited Mann and Jones 2003 as authority against Soon and Baliunas 2003.

  6. Dean
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    In trying to get things in order, is this the paper that in more recent emails is described as a piece of garbage?

  7. Jean S
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 3:06 PM | Permalink


    I’m not completely following this other substitution:

    Mann et al substituted the Yang series for a long Briffa chronology in their Figure 2 and, in addition, added the Mann and Jones 2003 strand to their spaghetti graph in Figure 1.

    There is a substitution of Mann&Jones(2003) composite for Briffa&Osborn(1999) (which is also removed from References) series in Figure 1 as evident by comparing the version from von Storch’s site to the published paper. But I don’t see any change in Figure 2 (especially Yang composite seems to be in all versions).

    • Kan
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

      The provence of the von Storch copy is important. As you said figure 2 is the same. However, some other changes were made.

      1) The list of references was changed. (interestingly, a Hughes reference was removed)
      2) a good part of comment 2 was removed
      3) some other minor edits.

      I noted this before, but on the internet, it is the von Storch copy that gets the most references.

      • Kan
        Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

        The one change to figure 2 was in the caption.

        von Storch version figure 2 caption for Yamal:

        [Hantemirov and Shiyatov, 2002]

        in published version is expanded to

        “Yamal” [Hantemirov and Shiyatov,
        2002, reprocessed in Briffa, 2000]

  8. SBD
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    This is from email 5055.txt. Begin reading at the bottom to get the actual flow of the conversation.
    Does this exchange not imply that Ed did not write the response to Mann’s letter and in fact Mann wrote it himself or am I reading it wrong?

    date: Mon Jun 17 16:39:14 2002
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Re: Esper et al. and Mike Mann
    to: Ed Cook

    I have just read this lettter – and I think it is crap.I am sick to death of Mann stating
    his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly
    temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these
    data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated
    verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more)

    At 11:16 AM 6/17/02 -0400, you wrote:

    Hi Tim,
    There was indeed a letter from Mike and Malcolm (the Prat; in Medieval times, that would
    have been his surname instead of Hughes) published in Science, with a reply from me. See
    below. In all honesty, I haven’t even read what was published. I am tired of the whole
    thing. At every meeting I go to where Mike gives a talk, he always presents more on why
    his series is correct. Honestly, most people I talk to think that he is being way too
    defensive (as we all know too well). In any case, he is coming out with a new NH
    reconstruction. It will be interesting to see what it looks like. One problem is that he
    will be using the RegEM method, which provides no better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than
    his original method. So we will still not know where his estimates are coming from.

    Cook E.R. and J. Esper. Tree-ring chronologies and climate variability – Response;
    Science, vol. 296, no. 5569, pp. 848-849, May 3, 2002.

    Hi Ed,
    Keith and I were talking last week and realised that neither of us had noticed the
    appearance of a letter in Science from Mike Mann, nor a response from you. Have we
    missed it?
    Hope all’s well with you.

    • Follow the Money
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 5:07 PM | Permalink

      I am fond of this observation too:

      “Fortunately, these two are clowns, neither remotely as sharp as Lindzen or as slick as Michaels, and it wasn’t too difficult to deal with them.”

      And a joke from Mr. Mann I begrudgingly admit is fairly funny:

      “It is true that the skeptics twist the truth clockwise rather than counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere?”

      • Follow the Money
        Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

        Link to Aug 4 2003 email I excerpted above.

      • Geoff Sherrington
        Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 2:38 AM | Permalink

        Make up your own mind. Here’s some SH material:
        > Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 18:14:17 +1100
        > From: Blair Trewin
        > To: David Jones , David Lister
        > Subject: RE: FW: Australian temperature data [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
        > I’ve finally had a chance to have a look at this – it turned out to be
        > more complicated than I thought because a change which I thought had
        > been implemented several years ago wasn’t.
        > Up until 1994 CLIMAT mean temperatures for Australia used (Tx+Tn)/2. In
        > 1994, apparently as part of a shift to generating CLIMAT messages
        > automatically from what was then the new database (previously they were
        > calculated on-station), a change was made to calculating as the mean of
        > all available three-hourly observations (apparently without regard to
        > data completeness, which made for some interesting results in a couple
        > of months when one station wasn’t staffed overnight).
        > What was supposed to happen (once we noticed this problem in 2003 or
        > thereabouts) was that we were going to revert to (tx+Tn)/2, for
        > historical consistency, and resend values from the 1994-2003 period. I
        > have, however, discovered that the reversion never happened.
        > In a 2004 paper I found that using the mean of all three-hourly
        > observations rather than (Tx+Tn)/2 produced a bias of approximately
        > -0.15 C in mean temperatures averaged over Australia (at individual
        > stations the bias is quite station-specific, being a function of the
        > position of stations (and local sunrise/sunset times) within their time
        > zone.
        > Blair Trewin
        > National Climate Centre
        > Bureau of Meteorology

        This is a bit fundamental. It throws doubt on the Berkeley BEST reconstruction, for example. At this stage we do not know how many countries made the same spiralling error, now which of the main global temperature estimators are free of it, though there are hints coming foreward.

        I’m trying to find out if BOM were selling a data product that they knew to be in error. I don’t think they are bad guys really, just a little selective in what they read.

    • Menth
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

      “Honestly, most people I talk to think that he is being way too
      defensive (as we all know too well).”

      At the very least these e-mails should lead to some hilariously awkward moments at the climatology Christmas party.

  9. Alastair
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 3:28 PM | Permalink

    How does one become a co-author after proofs have been accepted? Seems like an open and shut case of academic malfeasance – claiming the work of others as your own.

    Is there any evidence in the emails that Hughes made any meaningful contribution at all to this manuscript, enough to justify co-authorship? In the grand scheme of things it seems pretty small beer, but then they did get Al Capone for tax evasion.

    • Kan
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

      It is interesting – they even removed a cite to a Hughes paper prior to his signing on.

  10. Craig Loehle
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Peer review for thee but not for me…

  11. Pat Frank
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    It’s nice to see the Team working with Ellen Moseley-Thompson to do at EOS exactly what they falsely accused Chris de Freitas of doing at Climate Research.

    It’s also interesting to see Moseley-Thompson instructing the authors to re-write their paper to be consistent with the AGU policy statement on GHGs — following the precedent set by John Houghton having Ben Santer re-write the TAR SPM to be consistent with his GHG policy at the IPCC. It’s the new improved science: santerized — making dirty laundry whiter-than-white.

    • tom harvey
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

      You didn’t quite come out and say it, so I will. Adjusting the discussion to match the conclusion is the opposite of normal scientific practice. This email sequence is a glimpse inside the factory to see consensus being manufactured.

    • Pat Frank
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

      It was the SPM of the SAR Ben Santer modified when the IPCC was under Bert Bolin; not the TAR and John Houghton. My mistake, apologies.

      That said, you got it right, Tom.

  12. Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 3:54 PM | Permalink

    On a personal note, I might add that I did not receive similarly expedited treatment when I sought to respond to a defamatory article at EOS by Tom Crowley (for which Crowley has apologized privately, but not publicly.) EOS spent six months before getting a reviewer and, even though the reviewer conceded that I had legimitate grievances, Eos rejected the article as now being no longer newsworthy.

    It is now though.

  13. Craig Loehle
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 4:50 PM | Permalink

    New post at Lucia’s on how choice of baseline can make spagetti graphs look better ( –it looks like they did this in the EOS paper to make it look like the recons increasingly agree in more recent years with each other and with instrumental–another “trick”.

  14. Manfred
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM | Permalink

    Wikipedia reports untruely about the Soon and Baliunas controversy (and quotes a Guardian article):

    “…The Soon and Baliunas paper had been sent to four reviewers during publication, all of whom recommended rejecting it…”

    The truth is Otto Kinne’s conclusion:

    Can anybody correct this and also add that Mosely-Thomson “gagged when she heard that Soon contacted AGU to question the nature of the review.”

    • juanslayton
      Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 11:16 PM | Permalink

      I noticed this direct contradiction yesterday. The wiki writer cites an article by Fred Pearce in the Grauniad (Feb 2010)See foot note 13:

      But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. They concluded that their colleague de Freitas had ignored the anonymous advice of four reviewers to reject the paper.

      The wiki writer repeats as fact what is apparently an inference by columnist Pearce about the opinions of ‘many on the 10-man editorial board.’ So easily does conjecture morph into ‘fact.’

      • Posted Dec 5, 2011 at 4:35 AM | Permalink

        Wasn’t the Soon Baliunas paper originally submitted to a journal where it was rejected by the reviewers, who included Phil Jones in their number? After this rejection Soon submitted it to CR.

        • juanslayton
          Posted Dec 5, 2011 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

          I don’t know about an earlier submission. Any idea what publication that might be?

          The wiki entry to which I object follows a mention of CR and E&E as S&B publishers. I don’t see mention of a previous submission. This is the entry:
          The Soon and Baliunas paper had been sent to four reviewers during publication, all of whom recommended rejecting it.[13]

          The Guardian entry which is cited as the basis of the wiki entry reads:
          But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. They concluded that their colleague de Freitas had ignored the anonymous advice of four reviewers to reject the paper.

          Since the Guardian is discussing de Freitas as the editor, I see no basis to claim that the mention of four rejectionist reviewers refers to anything but the CR submission.

          The Guardian column is long and I haven’t read the whole thing carefully. I suppose it’s possible that somewhere there is something about another submission rejected by four anonymous reviewers. Somehow I tend to doubt it, however. : > )

    • Don McIlvin
      Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 12:34 AM | Permalink

      The way wikipedia works is anyone can become and editor. Just sign up with some pseudo name. Instead of removing the offending aspect, I might suggest some wording after that states an alternative from original participants. Then put in the Kinne reference URL as a citation. I might also warn you that wikipedia has super editors that in the Climate area are supporting the ‘team’. Don’t be surprised if about 10 people pounce and call your post ‘denier’ misinformation.

    • HaroldW
      Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 2:16 AM | Permalink

      From #3265:
      Chris de Freitas (editor in charge of SB03 at Climate Research) wrote to his publisher Otto Kinne, in response to criticsm:
      “Keep in mind that referees used were selected in consultation with a paleoclimatologist. Five referees were selected based on the guidance I received. All are reputable paleoclimatologists, respected for their expertise in reconstruction of past climates. None (none at all) were from what Hans and Clare have referred to as “the other side” or what Hulme refers to as people well known for their opposition to the notion that humans are significantly altering global climate.” One of the five referees turned down the request to review explaining he was busy and would not have the time. The remaining four referees sent their detailed comments to me. None suggested the manuscript should be rejected. S&B were asked to respond to referees comments and make extensive alterations accordingly. This was done.”

      Phil Jones later adds a small detail and some speculation:
      “I have learned one thing. This is that the reviewer who said they were too busy was Ray. I have been saying this to loads of papers recently (something Tom(w) can vouch for). It is clear from the differences between CR and the ERE piece that the other 4 reviewers did not say much, so a negative review was likely to be partly ignored, and the article would still have come out. I say this as this might come out if things get nasty. De Freitas will not say to Hans von Storch or to Clare Goodess who the 4 reviewers were. I believe his paleoclimatologist is likely to be Anthony Fowler, who does dendro at Auckland.”

  15. johnnythelowery
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

    Wow. The Epi-central pinion of fact of AGW laid bare for what it is. A mirage of amateur wish-full thinking masqerading as authorative intellect. Stevie M with the help of Mann exposes all the other amateurs for what they are as well and the real scientists (and Statisticians) shine brightly. Thank you Mann. Without your arrogance we would have to have spent a life of accepting that which we only suspected that, with the help of agent FOIA, what we now know. Instead of throwing the AGW ring into the refining fire of true peer review, where it belonged, you decided to keep your little precious and form a league with the other dark castles of power. The all seeing eye will come down. Anything built on lies usually finds itself in a meadow of Sunshine with no where to hide!!

  16. phinniethewoo
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 8:48 PM | Permalink

    Why not ask Ellen Mosely-Thomson why she gagged ?
    She is still alive

    Excellent question to break the ice when she is served with a new Richard Drake request, which is hot news.

  17. Rattus Norvegicus
    Posted Dec 2, 2011 at 10:05 PM | Permalink

    One might note that:

    Eos is a newspaper, not a research journal. Items in Eos require a writing style that is news-oriented and accessible to a broad audience. When preparing an article for Eos, the author must keep in mind that readers are not necessarily familiar with the manuscript’s topic.

    Note, “not a research journal”.

    • Kan
      Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 2:24 AM | Permalink

      Is this an admission that it cannot be cited as a debunking of anything since it was not peer-reviewed. It sounds like all cites to it as such, need to be retracted.

      • Kan
        Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 5:04 AM | Permalink

        Oh – wait it was peer-reviewed. From the EOS press release of the Mann 03 publication of July 8th:

        “Requests from reporters to top scientists in the field, seeking comment on the Soon and Baliunas position, led to memoranda that were later expanded into the current Eos article, which was itself peer reviewed. ”

        All questions about the review process still apply.

        • HaroldW
          Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

          So it was peer-reviewed and not one reviewer noticed that the “Crowley and Lowery” curve wasn’t? Another case of “nobody asked for the data”.

        • HaroldW
          Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM | Permalink

          The actual AGU press release, which claims the paper was peer-reviewed, is at

          “The Eos article is a response to two recent and nearly identical papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard‑Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, published in Climate Research and Energy & Environment (the latter paper with additional co-authors). These authors challenge the generally accepted view that natural factors cannot fully explain recent warming and must have been supplemented by significant human activity, and their papers have received attention in the media and in the U.S. Senate. Requests from reporters to top scientists in the field, seeking comment on the Soon and Baliunas position, lead to memoranda that were later expanded into the current Eos article, which was itself peer reviewed.”

        • Sean
          Posted Dec 6, 2011 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

          Nice find

    • ianl8888
      Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 2:40 AM | Permalink


      >The supplement is a fully integrated part of Eos and is fully archived and referenceable. The high peer-review and editorial standards for which Eos is known also apply to the material in the supplement<

      Forgot that bit, did you ?

  18. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

    There are 4 different versions of Mann (Eos 2003) online. I’ve just placed the official version online

    The first version at von Storch’s website here. is the submission version and shows the Briffa 2000 reconstruction in Figure 1, the Briffa 3-site long Yang chronology in Figure 2 and doesn’t have Hughes as a coauthor.

    The next version ( at Stephen Schneider’s website here) has Mann and Jones in Figure 1 (replacing the Briffa series), Yang in Figure 2 (as before) and doesn’t have Hughes as a coauthor.

    The third version is the same as the second, but adds Hughes as a coauthor.

    The fourth version (now at CA) is the third version set in AGU style.

    Update: Dec 3, 2011. Jean S and Kan have drawn attention to the fact the Yang series was already shown in the earliest version that we’ve seen. Also re-reading the emails collated in the Yang post, the changes refer only to Figure 1 though Bradley complains about the use of Yang in Figure 2.

    • Kan
      Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 3:00 AM | Permalink

      In this version from the Schneider website, Hughes is listed as a co-author.

      Click to access EOS_Mann_et_al_2003.pdf

      I do not understand the statement about the addition of the Yang series in figure 2 between the von Storch version and the Schneider version. The von Storch version figure 2 caption references the original source for the China series as Yang et al. 2002, as does the other versions.

      – you’re right about the Yang series in Figure 1 of the von Storch version. My error. I’ve amended my comment noting the correction.

  19. Mac
    Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 5:03 AM | Permalink

    Should we prepare a list of Team journals so that real scientists can avoid them.

    1. EOS
    2. ….

  20. Hu McCulloch
    Posted Dec 3, 2011 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    Correction to Steve’s post and several of my comments: Ellen M-T’s correct name is Mosley-Thompson, with only one e in the first part. See .

  21. InterstingTimes
    Posted Dec 4, 2011 at 1:03 AM | Permalink

    A bit later in 2004, EOS Forum is also the place, where Rahmsdorf et al. published their assault on Nir J. Shaviv & Ján Veizer on the Role of Cosmic Ray Flux variations as a Climate Driver, published in GSA Today.

    The political background for Rahmsdorf’s submission is expressed in 1981.txt. (link not working ?)

    Rahmsdorf writes to a long list of collegues that “I feel another recent paper may require a similar scientific response” – similar to the response to Soon&Baliunas.

    He organized a reply though he was still asking for “people who may have the right expertise”.

    Shaviv/Veizer’s responsed, and it becomes quite obvious that Rahmsdorf didn’t find such people.

    Shaviv/Veizer smashed Rahmsdorf’s reply.

    Click to access RahmstorfDebate.pdf

    Of course, Rahmsdorf et al. didn’t retract, they came up with another reply and mainly critizising something else.

    Shaviv/Veizer were then refused to reply again, though (or because?) Rahmsdorf et al. appear to have made very basic errors.

    Click to access RahmReplyReply.pdf

    With such errors, of course, Rahmsdorf et al. should have retracted.

2 Trackbacks

  1. […] from: Peer Review of Enhanced Hide-the-Decline Read […]

  2. […] Peer Review of Enhanced Hide-the-Decline Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

%d bloggers like this: