Yep.......and the state-run media won't know what hit em'...
From Andrew Revkin, Environmental writer for the New York Times...
"The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here."
Here's a pic of Mr. Revkin....
I wonder how he treated the hacking of Sarah Palin’s private e-mails.
From: Andrew Revkin <anrevk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
>>>>Subject: sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of this
>>>> singer/christy/etc effort
>>>>Mime-Version: 1.0
>>>>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>>>> boundary="=====================_67524015==_"
>>>>X-NYTOriginatingHost: [10.149.144.50]
>>>>
>>>>hi,
>>>>for moment please do not distribute or discuss.
>>>>trying to get a sense of whether singer / christy can get any traction
>>>>with this at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>*_ ANDREW C. REVKIN
>>>><http://www.nytimes.com/revkin>_*The New York Times / Environment / Dot
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 10:28:31 -0400
Cc: <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "J. Salinger" <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
good news Grant, we can trust him to be professional.
on a related note, a few folks have expressed concern that the galley-formatting of the
article w/out any label such as "submitted to JGR" is a bit misleading. some people think
the paper has already gone to press!
we should add a clear label such as "sub judice" or "submitted" to any posted and/or
circulating version of this,
mike
p.s. I've already had to correct both Andy Revkin and Joe Romm on this!
On Aug 6, 2009, at 7:19 PM, Grant Foster wrote:
Greetings,
I thought I'd let you all know that Steve Gahn has been assigned as editor for the
submission.
Sincerely,
Grant
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Revkin wrote:
needless to say, seems the 2008 pnas paper showing that without tree rings still solid
picture of unusual recent warmth, but McIntyre is getting wide play for his statements
about Yamal data-set selectivity.
Has he communicated directly to you on this and/or is there any indication he’s seeking
journal publication for his deconstruct?
—
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Environment
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556
Fax: 509-357-0965
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/revkin
On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Michael Mann wrote:
Hi Andy,
I’m fairly certain Keith is out of contact right now recovering from an operation, and is
not in a position to respond to these attacks. However, the preliminary information I have
from others familiar with these data is that the attacks are bogus.
It is unclear that this particular series was used in any of our reconstructions (some of
the underlying chronologies may be the same, but I’m fairly certain the versions of these
data we have used are based on a different composite and standardization method), let alone
any of the dozen other reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature shown in the
most recent IPCC report, which come to the conclusion that recent warming is anomalous in a
long-term context.
So, even if there were a problem w/ these data, it wouldn’t matter as far as the key
conclusions regarding past warmth are concerned. But I don’t think there is any problem
with these data, rather it appears that McIntyre has greatly distorted the actual
information content of these data. It will take folks a few days to get to the bottom of
this, in Keith’s absence.
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question.
of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our ‘98 article in Nature), his comment was
rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now
nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won’t submit for
peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism “published” it will be in the
discredited contrarian home journal “Energy and Environment”. I’m sure you are aware that
McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate
journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine
kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case,
The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what?
some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn’t
submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.
Fortunately, the prestige press doesn’t fall for this sort of stuff, right?
mike
I’m sure you’re aware that you will dozens of bogus, manufactured distortions of the
science in the weeks leading up to the vote on cap & trade in the U.S. senate. This is no
ROFL!