http://www.climategate.com/michael-mann-intellectual-property-transparency
Plenty of peer problems with Mann. He has a goodly group of people who consider him a mean spirited fraud.
Here is a Climategate excerpt from the leaked emails --
On February 13, 2006 when the National Research Council of the National Academies of the United States invited British climatologist Keith Briffa to appear before its enquiry in Washington, D.C., Briffa wrote Mike Mann. In CRU leaked email 1139835663 we see how Mann leans on Briffa to attend:
Briffa: “IN STRICT CONFIDENCE I am sending this for your opinion. To be frank, I am inclined to decline. What do think? Presumably you and others are already in the frame?”
Mann remains keen for his co-conspirators to be in the frame. He responds:
Mann: “ I think you really should do this if you possibly can. The panel is entirely legitimate, and the report was requested by Sherwood Boehlert, who as you probably know has been very supportive of us in the whole Barton affair. … Especially, with the new Science article by you and Tim I think its really important that one of you attend, if at all possible.”
If one is wondering about Mann’s definition of “legitimate,” he quickly erases any doubt:
Mann: “The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Christy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check: So I would encourage you to strongly reconsider!”
So, it seems Mann is implying that “solid” means “alarmist friendly” and so there is little risk for Briffa in appearing before it. However, Briffa’s lack of confidence is manifest:
Briffa: “Thanks for this, but after a lot of soul-searching this weekend, I have decided to decline the invitation.”
Keith Briffa won’t come to the States to testify for Mann because Briffa fears Mann’s tree-ring “trick” to erase past warming would be exposed. If this happens then the comparatively moderate warming of the late 20th century will be interpreted as yet another natural episode of natural climatic variation. Here’s Briffa’s take on it:
Briffa: “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.“
This is a remarkable admission that undermines the entire argument propounded publicly by Briffa, Mann and their colleagues that global warming was “unprecedented.”
Good ol’ Mike responds to this catastrophic development:
“I walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil Jones have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris Folland, through no fault of his own, but probably through me not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own [Mann and co-workers’] results.”
In other words, Mann, too, privately admits he has no confidence in his own conclusions! While no one knows Mann’s weasel propensities to fiddle the numbers better than respected Canadian climate analyst and statistician, Steve McIntyre.
Mann shows a lack of belief in his own ideas as others are distancing themselves from him. In this instance a British Climatologist declines to attend a conference with Mann ostensibly to avoid any questions relating to tree ring data from the Medieval Warm Period. Scientists have demonstrated that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today and Mann's colleague says as much in the article.
It means the 20th century is not an anomaly. We had a very similar and cyclical period a mere 1000 years ago. AGW supporters have aggressively and mendaciously attempted to downplay and isolate this data which is viewed as critical.