December 18, 2003 NO REPLY RECEIVED


Dear Dr. Verardo,

In your reply dated December 15, 2003, you state the following:

"In return, we expect them [grantees] to make their data available so that other scientists may examine and replicate their findings."

Again, I note that Professor Mann has directly refused to provide and Professor Bradley has failed to respond to a request for disclosure of the following information:

  • The identification of the 159 series used to carry out the reconstruction in MBH98;

  • complete description of the methodology used to read in the 159 series and effect the temperature re-construction in MBH98, through disclosure of the computer programs to effect this re-construction;

The recent request for information on residuals can be added.

Professor Mann's response to you, listing various disclosures over the past few years, is not responsive to the above very specific requests. I am familiar with the listed disclosures and none of them deal with the above data request. The fact that Professor Mann may have made adequate disclosure of other information is not relevant here. In the present state of disclosure of MBH98, we assert that it is not possible to "examine and replicate their findings.

As to the current standard of MBH98 disclosure, it is my understanding that the U.S. government has established standards for disclosure, applicable to recipients of government grants. Surely the applicable standard here is, at a minimum, that of being "capable of being substantially reproduced" as set out in Guidelines implementing Public Law 106-554. In the case of a publication as influential as MBH98 and with as profound a potential impact, copious and comprehensive disclosure is the only reasonable policy.  In his email of Dec. 5, 2003 to you, Professor Mann stated:

"We gave as detailed a description of our methods as was possible in the confines of a short paper, and in all these respects must have satisfied the stringent standards set by the editor and reviewers of the journal in which we published."


This very statement acknowledges that the "confines of a short paper" necessarily prevented complete and comprehensive disclosure of the methodology. Thus, while the disclosure may have met the standards of the journal, the above statement is not evidence that the disclosure met the pertinent standard of being "capable of being substantially reproduced." The situation can be readily remedied through trivial disclosure as requested above. The very difficulty of obtaining such disclosure should itself be of concern to you and others. We request that you re-consider your position on this matter forthwith.

I also strongly disagree with several comments in Mann's email in respect to his FTP site. Professor Mann stated:

All of the proxy data used in MBH98 were made available on our public ftp site once the various researchers that contributed data to our network were able to publish their own data (July 2002). The data (all individual proxy indicators used as well as the various PC representations of proxy sub networks for different time intervals) were provided in the various clearly labeled directories here: <>

The above statement implies that Professor Mann entered into embargo agreements with other scientists. If the embargoes are with scientists who are themselves recipients of U.S. grants, then such scientists would not be entitled to claim an embargo under the 1991 Policy Statement, since the use  in the MBH multiproxy study represented significant use of the data. Additionally, if one examines the listing of proxy sources at, one sees only two references which are later than 1996 and many, if not most, references are 1992 or earlier. This is at least prima facie evidence that there were no applicable embargo agreements. Since you have relied in part on the truth of the above claim regarding implied embargoes in reaching your decision, I request that you verify the existence of the specific embargoes, which prevented the timely disclosure of the proxy database.

Thank you for your attention to the re-consideration requests referred to above.

Yours truly,

Stephen McIntyre

No reply received.