Yesterday, Steve McIntyre published an apology from Tom Crowley for having published an inaccurate letter in the widely read, respected publication EOS. Many of Steve McIntyre’s readers have long believed that Steve McIntyre’s rebuttal of Tom’s inaccurate statements should have been published in EOS. EOS’s reading audience differs from that at Climate Audit. It’s clear they have been misinformed on issues surrounding the behavior of many involved in the various hockey stick wars. An apology by Tom Crowley published at Climate Audit is not sufficient to correct the mistaken notions that readers of EOS have developed based on the original inaccurate Tom Crowley latter.
Now that Tom Crowley has admitted that his published letter was inaccurate, I hope EOS will see fit to publish a statement that Tom Crowley retracts his own EOS letter and publishes Steve McIntyre’s rebuttal, along with a note explaining that they had received Steve McIntyre’s rebuttal but declined to publish it.
No no no no no… he is an AGW advocate and like everything else taken from the Climategate emails, he made an innocent mistake so it should be swept under the rug and kept as quiet as possible
In a perfect world…..
Lucia, this controversy was before my time.
Did you follow it as it unfolded, such that your take on events was that that an apology by Prof Crowley to S McI was warranted?
(All I know is what was posted yesterday at ClimateAudit on the subject. And life’s too short to dig into the archives on this one.)
MikeC–
Because Crowley has apologized, I believe his mistake is innocent in the sense that he did not make it on purpose. As with many mistakes, there was likely, some lack of care. If we delve psychology, the direction of his mistake was probably also influenced by some “them vs. us” solidarity, and may have been reinforced by ever escalating conversations between his “group” each of whom began to describe their current recollection. This would tend to reinforce his belief that Steve’s initial emails were rude– when in fact, that was far from the case. Also, discussion with others who “remembered” Steve made threats would tend to reinforce his “memory” that Steve made threats– which Steve did not do.
Unfortunately for Crowley and even more unfortunately for SteveMc, Crowley chose to write up his inaccurate recollection as fact even though Crowley thought he no longer had access to the emails that might refresh (and correct) his memory.
Even more unfortunately, the editors at EOS accepted Crowleys inaccurate description of events — despite lack of any evidence other than Crowleys recollection– and delayed then rejected Steve McIntyres– despite copious evidence that what Steve Said was true.
In my view, EOS is, in many ways more at fault than Crowley. They claim to be making decisions based on some sort of “peer review”. Their decision to publish Crowley’s write up gave it the appearance of truth by bestowing the label of “peer review”. Their decision to refuse Steve the opportunity to rebut gave the impression that Steve could not muster a response to scathing criticism– or that whatever he wrote could not, somehow pass “peer review”.
EOS looks very, very bad here.
Ideally, Tom Crowley should feel bad enough to be moved to suggest EOS publish his apology and retraction. But at least he has apologized. I would hope that this matter comes to the attention of those at EOS and they call the matter to their readers attention. I suspect they will not– but who knows? Maybe they will.
I also hope someone with the stature of Revkin or Kloor contacts EOS to find out if the matter has come to their attention and asks them what they plan to do about the matter. It seems to me that we need some third party people– like reporters– to interview people at EOS to learn and report their point of view on this. Such a view would assist outsiders in understanding what “peer review” means, how it operates, whether or not information is “retracted” and etc.
If what Crowley wrote in his article was inaccurate, an apology to S. McI was, in my opinion, definitely warranted. Crowley now admits that what he wrote was inaccurate and based on his mis-remembering facts. It appears he eventually came across documents that caused him to realize that his article was inaccurate, concluded (correctly imo) that an apology was warranted, and apologized to Steve.
IMO: If Crowley mensch index is 95% or higher, he will author a letter for EOS, and endeavor to have it published. If the editors at EOS are mensch’s they will publish it– and will, if the learn of this apology and the reason it was extended— will write an article about the incident even if not prodded by Crowley.
Still, by apologizing, in my estimation Crowley has gone from 0 mensch index to about 80% mensch on this. For all we know, he is taking additional steps– but doing things like writing EOS or encouraging them to issue a retraction are not things we would be able to see yet. If so, we will have to recognize an even higher mensch score.
For those like MikeC wanting to jump on Crowley this instant: Of course Crowley can’t really get to 100% mensch on this. To get that, he would have had to reigned himself in and not written a letter to a well respected journal based on faulty recollection after having lost the emails. But I know few people who ever achieve 100% mensch. I certainly don’t. Steve McI has accepted the apology so I think it’s not my or our place to complain about lack of absolute perfection right now.
I think you mean to say:
“Many at Steve McIntyre’s blog have long believed that Steve McIntyre’s rebuttal of Tom’s inaccurate statements should have been published in EOS.”
More interesting to me, going forward, is what seemingly instigated this denouement… the post-ClimateGate continuing asymmetry of the peer review process regards the recent Steig “improvement” paper. imho.
Zer0th–
I’m not sure it’s possible to entirely fix the asymmetry. But Crowley prodding EOS to publish a retraction is a step that might prod some level of correction. It’s the sort of step that has some possibility of making the wider climate community believe that a problem exists. Currently, I think many believe it couldn’t even hypothetically exist.
Lucia – I entirely agree that EOS comes out of this looking very bad. Crowley apologized, perhaps with some excess excuses thrown in, but apologized nonetheless and should be granted some recognition for “manning up” so to speak.
EOS on the otherhand was provided a contemperaneous rebuttal from Steve McIntyre which, from what I reviewed, clearly indicated that many of Crowley’s comments were not true. To not print the rebuttal and allow its readership to judge the veracity of Crowley’s versus McIntyre’s statements seems to me to be an egregious breach of journalistic and professional standards at a minimum. That Steve’s response should have even been subject to peer review seems ludicrous. Yes, the journal editors should have fact-checked the supporting documentation provided by McIntyre and perhaps asked him to tighten it up to a lesser word count but, beyond that it seems to me EOS had an moral obligation to print his rebuttal.
Lucia, you seem to be missing an “in” after “letter” in the second line of your post.
As far as getting EOS to publish or at least acknowledge the apology, I doubt it would achieve much. It would be a one-paragraph affair buried in the most obscure part of the journal and nobody would notice.
This is a very nice example of what happens when memories are filtered through biases, and should serve as a warning to everyone. The CAGW community in particular needs to be made aware of it, which is why I think RealClimate should publish and acknowledge the apology. I won’t be holding my breath though.
Steve McIntyre has a long history of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and crying wolf over issues of imagined persecution. EOS has no obligation, journalistic or otherwise, to provide him with a platform, or give his assertions equal weight with those of persons of integrity.
EOS should have fact-checked more carefully, and if they erred (a link to the apology in question would be nice) they should correct it themselves. McIntyre, for his part, should reflect on how his own history of manipulative behavior and contempt for the truth undermines his credibility even when he is not lying.
“Steve McIntyre has a long history of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and crying wolf over issues of imagined persecution.”
Maybe he hasn’t. Maybe it’s all self-reinforcing misrememberings by people who THOUGHT he had such a history. In other words, show some objective evidence.
The apology is on ClimateAudit, here: http://climateaudit.org/2011/01/04/crowleys-belated-apology/
“I also hope someone with the stature of Revkin or Kloor contacts EOS to find out if the matter has come to their attention and asks them what they plan to do about the matter. ”
Wishful thinking I would say.
.
Lucia, can you remember any single instance where any of the mainstream journalists said a single genuine nice thing about the skeptics anywhere?
.
No just damming with faint praise or hoisting them up only to bring them down, but a single word of understanding acknowledgement?
.
I am just asking.
According to what I read at CA from Steve M, the documents, some of which Crowely found and without details of how that happened, were available all the time. Crowely also notes that he had another incident in memory lapse like this one before but does not detail whether that involved impugning someone’s character. Crowely also notes that he had meant to apologize sooner but evidently kept forgetting. The obvious point is that Crowely went to the effort to publish a description of events that he could not even document. He does not explain in the apology, but if he lost the emails prior to publishing he truly had no documentation and certainly should not have published. If he had the emails at the time but did not bother reading them or quoting from them that is an even bigger error in judgement and ethical behavior.
You can all give him due credit for that apology, but someone has to note that it is a pathetic and incomplete one. Will you all forgiving ones continue to credit Crowely if he does not publish a rebuttal in EOS?
Robert–
You do realize that the person of integrity (Crowley) who wrote an article claiming to document all the sins you just described has just written an apology telling people that what he– Crowley– said was false? He said that he misremembered. He realized that when he came across actual emails that showed that what he– Crowley– remembered was inaccurate.
Shub–
I don’t know. But both Kloor and Revkin seem interested in understanding what can happen during peer review. Both seem interested in both the potential positive and negatives. Even without saying anything “nice” about skeptics, exploring how tribal politics can affect peer review might, at least hypothetically interest an reporter like either one of them. Or maybe even someone else.
Or not.
When Robert says:
“EOS should have fact-checked more carefully, and if they erred (a link to the apology in question would be nice) they should correct it themselves. McIntyre, for his part, should reflect on how his own history of manipulative behavior and contempt for the truth undermines his credibility even when he is not lying.”
I think he should be strongly considerd for any prize that might be contemplated for those who come by these blogs defending the indefensible.
Does the length of time Crowley has taken to apologise exclude action by McIntyre against EOS for defamation due to Statute of Limitations constraints?
2dogs–
I have no idea. I’m under the impression that McIntyre hasn’t suggested he would sue. If he’s not inclined to sue, the Statute of Limitations is irrelevant.
Lucia, Okay, what ever… would you be intrested in a plot of prime real estate in the Everglades? As for EOS, it’s no different from Science or Nature which are being run by the same bunch of draft dodging, tie-dye wearing, pot smoking (to ease the effects of the shroomies) left wing eco-trash. What should we expect? Oh, yeah… wait… the trick to hide the decline was an intresting way to resolve a problem… nothing like the trick aka how to hide the quarter up your sleve.
Yeah, Okay, let’s just blindly believe that no ones hands were in the cookie jar… the crumbs got on the shirt another way
Ken Fritsch: Great idea. Should we call it the Arusha prize, the Folland-Mann-Briffa prize, the 1% prize, or the Bradley-Fritts prize?
Kenneth Fritsch: Great idea. Should we call it the Arusha prize, the Folland-Mann-Briffa prize, the 1% prize, or the Bradley-Fritts prize?
Funny how Crowley’s apology only encourages idiotic comments like MikeC’s.
Boris (Comment#64866) January 6th, 2011 at 7:25 am
I think you mean like Robert’s comment!!!
Tell me Boris what is the correct way react to this? Go ahead tell us because what I see is that the AGW crowd and the like (who MikeC refers to) continually dictate how people should feel about EVERYTHING. Push and push your opinions on people who don’t agree… over and over…even acting unprofessional to do so as this story tells…THEN act all superior and point fingers “look at you!” if people get mad and fed up or react -even if they express themselves like MikeC. Yes you are such “better” person/man/woman Boris!
My husband is a retired disabled veteran of the US Army who took care of his country, life and limb on the line; and now continues to be an honest and thorough published Earth scientist for his state and community.
You tell us what an “idiot” opinion is and what a “better” person/man is!! Go ahead. Because my husband would agree with MikeC!!! And sorry SteveMac apologies are good; but that one was a day late and a dollar short. I live among much better men!
Re: Robert (Jan 5 18:35),
PolyisTCOandbanned/scientist — not a favorite at e.g. ClimateAudit or RealClimate — has offered some very acerbic critiques of SMcI’s style with respect to “misrepresentation.” His commentary is uneven, contributing to his earning moderation, here and elsewhere. And it’s hard to read, because he doesn’t put in links and references. FWIW, some is cross-posted here and further down that thread.
That said, some of TCO’s criticisms have a lot of merit, I think.
And that said, Robert is deploying a broad attack on SMcI’s character to defend Bad Behavior. Tu quoque is ironic in this instance. (1) Crowley and the EOS editors acted in exactly the way that skeptic partisans claim is S.O.P. for the Climate Establishment — an unfair smear, a tilted playing field. (2) SMcI responded with integrity — read his Comment (linked at the CA post), rejected by EOS under reasoning that would have prohibited publication of Crowley’s original piece.
AGW as soap opera. Certain actors always good, other ones always bad.
It’s amazing how AGW-zealots like Robert and Boris are trying to spin Crowley’s apology back to McIntyre. Love and faith makes blind, I guess.
MikeC,
My observation is that Lukewarmers have cultural loyalties or demands that prevent them from full disclosure of what they really think.
In American Liberal political/elitist/Smarter Than You culture, you can’t “tell it like it is” to begin with, unless you want trouble with your tribe.
I say, it’s never too late to free your mind and your speech. Just takes a little courage.
Andrew
AMac:
I was amused that he had problems with Jeff’s contrail posts. Jeff worked it out, just as many others did, that the contrails were from a jet airliner.
It’s really easy to hide behind a stream of consciousness like TCO does, you never really have to prove or substantiate any of the blather that comes from your mouth, you just get to snipe at everybody. Speaking of boring behavior, that’s the definition of it to me.
lucia (Comment#64813)
Well put. I give great credit to Crowley for his apology, despite the many at CA who find it wanting. Beyond a certain age (at least), one has memories which have the mental appearance of certainty, but which are inaccurate. [Due to remembering one’s emotional reactions and inferences rather than objective facts, at least based on personal anecdotal evidence.] It appears he tried at the time to find the documents, but failed, and relied instead on his erroneous impression of certainty (not to mention the inaccurate memories themselves).
EOS has no such excuse. If they’re going to publish a “he said…” piece (especially without hard evidence) it seems only fair to publish the [other] “he said” part. And they compounded the mistake later by claiming that the passage of time (due to their own procedures) made the response inappropriate for printing.
P.S. By the way, the plural is “menschen.” Just thought I’d mention that.
Boris, You’re the only AGW’r so far who doesn’t subscribe to substance abuse, so it onnly looks idiotic to you. The rest of your eco-trash bretheren come down from bongaloid land and say yeah, then they lawyer up or try to be lawyerly.
But in the end, you have to deal with the way it is. Crowley got caught and tried to talk his way out of it.
HaroldW
Thanks. I think mesnch is masculine. Am I correct? Is there a female form?
Mike–
Try to reduce the rate at which you fling around words like “eco-trash bretheren”, and accusing people of coming down from “bongaloid land”.
Also, Crowley does not seem to have been “caught”. It appears he came to this realization on his own.
While the word mensch has its origins in a masculine form, it is used — well, at least I use it — as inspecific in gender. So there’s no need for a feminine form. At least that’s my take on it.
A brief Google seems to support that view, e.g.:
http://quotes.dictionary.com/The_term_mensch_literally_means_a_person_or
Okay, no more eco-trash comments today, but Crowley didn’t say anything til he was obviously backed into a corner
Robert (Comment#64842)
January 5th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
That is probably the most disgusting comment I have ever read!! You had better have some good evidence for your libel or you mind find yourself in deep dodos. Fumier in french. Along with Boris you need to find some humility when commenting along the line advocated by Lucia.
I’m of the same mind as Kenneth Fritsch (Comment#64848) re:
“The obvious point is that Crowely (sic) went to the effort to publish a description of events that he could not even document.â€
I’m not one who subscribes to the idea that a scientist should take off their scientists’ hat. As a scientist, you just shouldn’t go around saying things that are not based on the record. If you do, that, imo, is an abuse of your title. As well, if you’re found out, you’re bound to lose your credibility.
Even though the original article was presented in a “forum,†Dr. Crowley was well known and respected for his work. People in the loop believed what he said. That he presented such a skewed (to put it nicely) perspective/opinion based on what we now know was the result of faulty memory, really was shameful behavior.
This story, or at least a retraction of the original, should be FRONT PAGE in EOS.
Regardless of your opinion on Steve M’s style, his work (alone and with others) is significant in the field of climate science.
Is this another lesson from climate scientists behaving badly? Oh the humanity!
Re: HaroldW (Jan 6 13:20),
Mensch in German takes the masculine definite article der. But that’s not terribly meaningful. The German for girl, Mädchen, takes the neuter definite article das. It’s generally used as meaning human being or people in the plural (Menschen). It’s more formal than Leute, which also means people. There is no singular form of Leute. The singular would be Person, which takes the feminine definite article die.
I thought Mensch was Yiddish! I didn’t realize it was German.
So.. naturally I googled. It seems to have gotten into Yiddish from German and into English from Yiddish. Who’s a thunk?
What, you don’t read Nietzsche for r&r?!? :p
@Lucia
Let’s delve into history. That’s called “circling the wagons”. Yes, Judy, very apt. It looks like this particular Climatological pioneer/settler/squatter wants to come out and surrender to the ‘uncivilised’ natives. But he does it halfheartedly, guardedly, not sure if the Chief of the natives will scalp him, or whether he’ll be shot in the back.
Mensch index. You learn something new everyday.
He could have raised his mensch index if the apology was decent, honest and timely, and sent to EOS and all other relevant blogs and major media outlets that relied on Crowley’s character assassination of McIntyre. He could have raised it to close to perfection, if he had sent his apology to McIntyre with a case of wine, considering the damage he inflicted.
Crowley’s apology, with its short length, its cynical waffling content, the time it took to submit, and the exceptionally narrow target audience (Steve and his blog and anywhere else that the word might spread), is worth nothing more than 51%, if one has to mark academically. That’s a bare Pass. A whisker from Fail.
Crowley cannot pretend to be ignorant of this post on Climate Audit: http://climateaudit.org/2005/07/01/the-crowley-mcintyre-letters/ There, he could read every email communication that McIntrye sent him, which could help jog his allegedly faulty memory. That’s what they do in the courtrooms.
Indeed, if this was a court of law, McIntyre would win on the quality of his evidence alone. But no, this is the court of public opinion, and the memory of a reputable climate scientist means more, says more, and is more reliable, than the e-mail record of a pretender like McIntyre.
Crowley’s claim that he remembered what he and McIntyre communicated after he re-discovered his own email record is laughable. Only those who want to believe, would believe such a nonsense.
Once again, he likes to give that impression, in fact, it amounts to very little. There many papers out there, (I could google it if you really want), hundreds, thousands, and far more significant actual novel research. McIntyre’s specialty is just reheating the research of others, but making the gravitas sound like it’s important.
x
Re: bugs (Jan 7 03:18),
The science of climate science has been vastly improved by SMcI’s participation, IMO. To say this doesn’t mean that I have to agree with his positions, or see his contributions as always (or even mostly) correct, or find him to be the World’s Most Wonderful Person. Etc.
McIntyre didn’t establish the field’s aberrant norms on replication, particularly with respect to archiving and sharing of data and code, and the celebration of idiosyncratic statistical methods. And they weren’t a reaction to him. Absent a time machine, they couldn’t be — cliqueishness and groupthink preceded him.
Examples on request. But the very fact that the discussion continues at this level in 2011 shows that the shortcomings of the Establishment AGW position continue to be broadly unrecognized by its partisans.
As with all (possibly) european languages the masculin/feminin is not a matter of gender. English speakers are given this hook as a means of helping attach the definite acticle to the noun.
par exemple, in french a thread or wire is un fil (masc said fill) but a file of traffic or people is une file (feminin said fill) . Without the change in definite article one cannot distinguish between the two nouns in the spoken language.
Amac: The science of climate science has been vastly improved by SMcI’s participation, IMO.
.
Hmm… Would you mind pointing out examples of such improvements that were specifically initiated by McI?
Re: toto (Jan 7 07:59),
> examples of such improvements that were specifically initiated by McI
1. Pressing for specifying which data sets are used in paleo reconstructions, 1999-present.
2. Pressing for specifying what mathematical procedures are used in paleo reconstructions.
3. Challenging journals to live up to their stated data access policies.
4. Challenging funding agencies to live up to their stated data access policies.
5. Advocating for improved, more open policies with respect to access to data and code.
6. Highlighting the previously-neglected effects of the widespread practice of post-hoc analysis on climate reconstructions and on their accompanying uncertainty estimates.
7. Demonstrating that certain high-profile proxy-based climate reconstructions in high-impact journals are not reproducible, while others depend on idiosyncratic proxy choices (e.g. bristlecone pines, Yamal larches).
8. Demonstrating the shortcomings of certain idiosyncratic, ad hoc mathematical approaches to climate reconstruction, e.g. short-centered PCA and ad hoc rules-of-thumb with respect to the number of principal components to employ.
9. With respect to the high-profile, high-impact Mann et al (2008) reconstruction, demonstrating that the three (not four) Tiljander data sets (not proxies) were wrongly used, and that the key conclusion of this paper depended on such wrong use.
“Hmm… Would you mind pointing out examples of such improvements that were specifically initiated by McI?”
Wasn’t SteveMc an official reviewer in the IPCC process?
At least your kings and queens thought he had the qualifications and added to the “improvement” of the science.
Man! A science that is pushed to -save mankind!- is filled to the brim with fanatics who basically have a constant negative opinion of their fellow human beings. What’s the point? Do think in the future all human beings will see things exactly the same and do things exactly the same, and say things exactly the same and feel things exactly because you stopped the world from warming? Sheesh.
“It’s amazing how AGW-zealots like Robert and Boris are trying to spin Crowley’s apology back to McIntyre. Love and faith makes blind, I guess.”
Speaking of blind, when did I mention McIntyre?
Crowley was wrong on this and EOS should publish something on the issue. But people being rude to McSteve doesn’t make him right or innocent of his own boorish behavior.
Frankly, if you think that the only science with jerks in it is climate science, you need to get out more.
The main problem with McIntyre is that he is always trying to make scientists look bad. Sometimes he succeeds brilliantly; other efforts are duds. But he is not really interested in clarifying the difficult issues in climate science:
-He uses terms in ambiguous and inaccurate ways (e. g. “hockey stick,” “trick”).
-He rarely completes an analysis–especially when it looks like a completed analysis would conflict with his criticisms.
-He makes vague assertions.
-He almost never puts his criticism in context.
-He seems to be more interested in self-promotion than in figuring out how the climate works.
In short, he’s more interested in the soap opera aspect of science and I, for one, couldn’t care less.
C’mon, B; TCO’s way better.
===================
“7. Demonstrating that certain high-profile proxy-based climate reconstructions in high-impact journals are not reproducible, while others depend on idiosyncratic proxy choices (e.g. bristlecone pines, Yamal larches).”
I’ve seen this claimed, never demonstrated.
And it was certainly never demonstrated in a paper, was it?
Re: Boris (Jan 7 10:12),
Boris, good reminder on #7, that SMcI hasn’t published those in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Though (1) that can be hard to do for this sort of correction in normal circumstances, and (2) there’s good evidence that climate science isn’t normal in that regard. More to the point, (3) normal science doesn’t operate exclusively through the peer-reviewed literature, and never has. E.g. conference talks, posters, meetings, happy hours. And–recently–blogs. While your/TCO’s criticism has merit, IMO, it’s odd to take that as far as “X hasn’t been in the peer-reviewed literature, thus I close my ears and eyes to it.” Read the responses to the McShayne and Wyner paper at Annals of Applied Statistics (scroll down to “Climate Change Discussion”) to see that proponents of the status quo are not able to dismiss the best of the ‘skeptical’ arguments (such as this one).
Anyway, thanks for the response. Any other thoughts, pro or con, on #s 1-6 and 8-9?
I have thought further on the circumstances surrounding Crowely’s sudden urge to “find” the missing emails from which he erroneously recollected Steve M’s bad behavior and then after forgetting to do anything about it for a while suddenly provided an apology with much dithering.
Remember that this same Crowely made a comment about Steve M’s claim of an 88 page reply for a reviewer of O2010 (and corroborated by all the other authors of the paper) that this would be a very unusual practice and disconcerting, or words to that effect, but that he would need documented proof before commenting further. I am not sure, but I suspect that while the O authors were not sure of the protocol on a matter like this one they might have provided Crowely with documentation. Do you think that a light might have gone off in Crowely’s head making the connection to his comments about Steve M without documentation and how hypocritical in that light his request would be to Steve M for documentation? If he thought anyone would follow up on this matter what better time than the present to do some damage control.
Two questions come to mind: Will Crowely take his apology to the pages of EOS and will he (if documentation has been provided) speak out further on the hoops that O2010 went through for publication? Sincerity is what is in question here.
liza (Comment#64960) —
Being an IPCC reviewer is no big deal, you just need affiliation with some kind of organisation (which are very loosely vetted if at all) to back an application IIRC, and agree not to divulge any content prior to publication. Monckton was a reviewer and look at how qualified he is (journalism degree).
AMAC,
I might quibble with some of the wording on the others (example: #9–did Tiljander really invalidate the key conclusion? I don’t think so.)
As for 7, I’ve never seen it demonstrated anywhere that recons depend on bristlecone pines, for example. That is the claim. But it doesn’t make sense to me. The contaminated period is the twentieth century, so is the claim that bristlecones have an unusually flat MWP? I’ve never seen anyone other than Ammann and Wahl (and maybe Gavin at RC) show a recon without bristlecones. If you know of one, let me know.
And this doesn’t even cover the argument that BCPs are still a valuable, if imperfect, temp proxy.
Fair play to Crowley for making an apology, but I’m curious about the challenge he made at dotearth:
” I am concerned about McIntyre’s claim of 88 pages of reviews and responses to the Journal of Climate paper – I have never heard of any paper having that much of a go-around. I think he needs to post this evidence on his blog.
I have seen a few thousand reviews in my life (I used to work at NSF) – if McIntyre is right he may well have a point about fairness – but he HAS to present the evidence or his charge is meaningless.”
Is that a reasonable request if review comments are typically confidential by convention or journal policy, and Crowley knows this.
Re: Boris (Jan 7 12:05),
> example: #9–did Tiljander really invalidate the key conclusion? I don’t think so.
The reason Mann08 was published in PNAS (#5 journal for impact by one of Wikipedia’s methods) was, in my opinion, that the authors claimed that non-treering proxies could be used to build paleoclimate reconstructions that go back 1,300 years or more — and that these reconstructions are consistent with the well-known but controversial treering-based ones. Here’s the abstract.
Here is Comment #414 from RealClimate’s July 2010 post “The Montford Delusion.” It’s Judy Curry saying some stuff, and Gavin Schmidt responding at length. Blablabla… except a sentence (emphasis added) buried in these lines.
Nicholas Nierenberg revisited the point in Comment #529.
Would Mann08 have been accepted in PNAS, if the reviewers and editors had been diligent? I don’t think so.
In the introduction to Isaac Asimov’s autobiography he mentions that when he reviewed his extensive journals before writing, he found that there were incidents in his past that were the opposite of what he remembered happening. Memory is very plastic.
“In the introduction to Isaac Asimov’s autobiography he mentions that when he reviewed his extensive journals before writing, he found that there were incidents in his past that were the opposite of what he remembered happening. Memory is very plastic.”
..he mentions that when he reviewed his extensive journals before writing… but more importantly he did not forget to review before writing.
Boris, you say
“As for 7, I’ve never seen it demonstrated anywhere that recons depend on bristlecone pines, for example. That is the claim. But it doesn’t make sense to me. The contaminated period is the twentieth century”
Then I suggest you have never read the McIntyre and McKitrick 2006 paper in Energy and Environment – see http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf
AMac (Comment#64958) January 7th, 2011 at 8:38 am
No wonder they had to get it published in E&E. The whole paper can be summed up as “Mann is evil”. That’s not how science works. If they have something to say, then say it. If Mann committed fraud, then accuse him of fraud. They know that there is no evidence of fraud, they should just publish their own paleo reconstruction. For some reason, that wasn’t good enough.
Re: bugs (Jan 9 04:44),
???
Your comment is not responsive to what I wrote in #64958. Nor is it responsive to the request toto had made in #64956.
You have your opinions just as everyone else has theirs. Some of the things that you say in support of your view are incorrect. FWIW, I have been critical of the personal tone that SMcI sometimes takes at his blog. But that, too, is neither here nor there with respect to toto’s #64956 query.
bugs:
Is what he said accurate or not?
This is just a diversion from the real issues.
“Then I suggest you have never read the McIntyre and McKitrick 2006 paper in Energy and Environment – see http://climateaudit.files.word…..e-2005.pdf”
Once again, he never demonstrates the claim. There is no comparison between a n MBH recon with and without BCPs. He compares them to a 1992 paper by Briffa, which is wholly unconvincing. Then he makes the meaningless statement (oft repeated by his fans) that the BCPs receive 390 times more weight than the least weighted series. That’s a pretty irrelevant statement which makes it look like the BCPs are the only important series in NOAMER1. Finally, he goes on and on about the problems that BCPs might have, which doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not the recons “depend” on BCP.
And Salzer’s paper in PNAS shows that BCPs are a good temp proxy, so even the complaints about BCPs and CO2 fertilization appear to be unfounded.