Well the NOAA almost got it right. Actually, I’m not sure what this is in reference to other than some funding which should have been saved.
date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:05:58 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@virginia.edu>
subject: Re: talk
to: Keith Briffathanks a bunch Keith,
This sounds interesting–looking forward to hearing more about this latest analysis…
talk to you soon,
mike
At 03:40 AM 6/24/2004, Keith Briffa wrote:Well done Mike
in case you think I was slacking , I spent the last two days embroiled in Degree
scrutiny/committee (and evenings wining and dining external examiners!). Hope to send
some stuff on our reworking of the Esper et al.analysis for your opinion soon. What are
the real chances of a change of heart on the Palaeo stuff?
Very best wishes
Keith
At 22:46 23/06/2004, you wrote:Hi Keith,
I think the talk went well received this morning. Thanks a bunch for your input. Peck,
Mark Cane, and I all spoke in the paleo session. Hopefully we might have make some
progress in convincing NOAA not to cut paleo. Will have to see what happens…
Hope all is well w/ you. Talk to you again soon,
mike
____________________________
the Air Vent 
“I think the talk went well received this morning.”
More Mann-speak…heh!
Re: funding.
The press releases, TV and public appearances, websites, MSM interviews, etc. by The TEAM ™ are ALL about the Climate Ca$h (i.e. funding). And, of course, climate science funding is all about:
THE CAUSE(tm)