Eli keeps bringing up John Neils Gammon. It turns out Eric’s ‘KNUCKLE-HEADED REVIEWERS’ comment triggered a post replying to Eric. In, Steig: This Is Not Complicated, John Nielsen-Gammon writes:
Steig’s statement in Review #3 that “The use of the ‘iridge’ procedure makes sense to me, and I suspect it really does give the best results” reads as a plain endorsement of iridge, and is inconsistent with Steig’s comment above that he believed at the time that “iridge should not be used”. Maybe he did believe as he said in his comment, but he certainly left the opposite impression with what he wrote in his review.
I encourage all to visit JNG’s post to read the comment I quote in its full context.
“Maybe he did believe as he said in his comment, but he certainly left the opposite impression with what he wrote in his review.”
It was better than kgnd and presented the authors’ best result. What do you want from the guy? He has to review the paper he’s given, not the paper he wishes was written.
I can’t believe I wasted a whole day reading about “O’Donnellgate.” What a lot bitching and whining about nothing.
Eric Steig already commented after the post…. as unrepentant as ever. I particularly liked the part about why reviews should not be disclosed:
.
This is why: because, as with the ‘climategate’ emails, people will ‘study’ them and come up with whatever conclusion they want to find. This is why I asked O’Donnell not to publish this stuff, and why he gave his word he wouldn’t. Now, you are doing exactly the same thing O’Donnell is: reading through private correspondence and publicly speculating on its ‘hidden’ meaning. It’s unethical, and does no one any good (except perhaps O’Donnell and Co., who seem to thrive on this sort of thing).
.
Wait a minute… did Eric just tell JNG that he is unethical? I expect a ‘team’ fatwa against JNG will be issued shortly. Just keep tightening the circle of wagons until it spirals up its own… Oh well. Sad.
I encourage you to read the rather obvious distinction between what Steig said and what is claimed, to wit:
So says Steig, quite correctly, as the full quote makes clear:
It is surprising that you do not recognize when someone is is heeding the demands of diplomacy and good manners by starting by praising and noting areas of agreement before proceeding to offer criticism.
As I noted on JG’s site,
Steig’s comment above that he believed at the time that “iridge should not be usedâ€
is a misquote. What ES said was:
“I SIMPLY DID NOT THINK I COULD ARGUE WITH THE EDITOR OR THE KNUCKLE-HEADED REVIEWERS that it should not be used. “
He’s saying that’s why he let it pass. If he thought he could argue that (with ED etc) it should not be used, it doesn’t mean that he would have. He might have put a different argument with caveats etc.
Nick Stokes,
.
I hope that the S(09) authors put together a formal comment on the weaknesses/errors in O(10) at JoC, so that O(10) can then formally reply to their objections. But I really do not think they will do this, since 1) O(10) seems much more technically solid than S(09), and 2) the O(10) authors would then ‘have the last word’ via a formal reply. I just don’t think the S(09) authors want Ryan’s side-by-side sensitivity tests for S(09) and O(10) to be published in a reply in JoC.
Nick
“I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.â€- John Kerry
Re: lucia (Feb 13 20:39),
Sorry, Lucia, I don’t get that at all. What buck? ES is just explaining why he didn’t put an argument about iridge at that point. The accusation against him is that not that he should have, but that he did.
I thought the accusation against ES was that he ENDORSED iridge in his reviews? And while I don’t think he explicitly did, I can understand why RO could have come to believe that was the case, especially considering the back-and-forth they had in review and response. Now ES seems to over-emphasising his lack of endorsement, implying that he was actually against using iridge but didn’t think he could win the case.
The sad thing is, neither the S(09) or O(10) temperature constructions are likely to be truly valid. Sparse data is sparse data and the solution is get more thermometers in Antarctica, not play “fill in the gaps” with mathematical tools. ES should have realised this. The reviewers of S(09) should have. JoC should have. Nature should have.
matt–
To some extent, O(10) agree with you. That’s part of their point. Ordinarily, this “we can’t create a really good reconstruction” would not be an interesting finding; it is only interesting because S(09) claim they can.
Nick–
Not putting an argument against iridge in a review if he believed he had such an argument would failing in his duty as a reviewer which obligates him to inform the editor, authors and evidently in this case other reviewers what he thinks. Writing an review that reads like he recommended iridge when he did not is failing his duty as a reviewer. Not correcting the mis-perception that he’s recommended iRidge– as clearly communicated by RyanO in a response to Eric and a second to all reviewers– would be failing in his duty as a reviewer.
So, basically, if eric was not recommending iridge, he wrote a lousy 3rd review, (and likely a pretty bad 2nd review!)
ES is pretty much excusing his lousy review which didn’t communicate what he thinks he meant on the editor and the knuckle-headed reviewers. He appears to be blaming the reviewers and editor for his lousy review.
This is boiling down to Steig saying “Never mind what I said, you should have been listening to what I meant!”
Re: lucia (Feb 13 22:41),
“The Rod Blagovecich of Science!” – he recommended iridge, then went against it.
Oh, he didn’t? Then he wrote a lousy review – failed in his duty!
I get the feeling that you’d find fault with whatever he did.
It wouldn’t matter what Steig said – the denialist chumsters here will simply re-edit his original words until they are happy with their new meaning.
I think the answer for Steig is to take his own advice.
He didnt like it whe Ryan challenged his work (S09) on the web.
He challenged Ryan to write a paper.
Steig should take his own challenge. And Ryan should be reviewer A
The only one re-editing his words is Steig himself although it seems others are happily taking up his rewriting of “history”. Frankly it all seems a bit of a tempest in a teapot — West Antarctica will warm (or not) regardless of whether Dr. Steig’s or O’Donnell’s feelings are hurt. Scientists and statisticians can choose to use Steig’s methods, O’Donnell’s or a different way altogether and time will show which bears the greatest relation to reality.
“It wouldn’t matter what Steig said – the denialist chumsters here will simply re-edit his original words until they are happy with their new meaning”
“Denialists” as you call them are a small minority in this place and are routinely called out on errors of fact. When Makarieva et. al. presented a paper apparently exposing a major defect in current climate models, the denizens of The Blackboard completely shredded the arguments in it, see: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/other-than-that-whats-wrong-with-the-derivation-of-34/ This is not a denialist site.
Re S(09) and (O)10, I can completely see both their points of view. Steig was asked to review a paper, the subject matter of which he was an acknowledged expert in. He did so, finding several issues which he thought needed further work. The paper was progressively modified as a result of his comments but rather than addressing his final concerns, the authors persuaded the editor that no further changes were required. He took those concerns to discussion on Realclimate. What’s the big deal?
However, from RyanO’s point of view, Steig was playing him for a fool. RyanO had felt that the back-and-forth correspondence of review and response was constructive, even possibly collaborative, especially considering RO and ES were in email correspondence at the same time. I can absolutely understand how RO could have felt that ES had endorsed iridge during the review process. Steig’s commentary on Realclimate must have felt like a stab in the back, a betrayal of trust, and so he retaliated in kind. With hindsight it’s terribly sad, and things have been said in anger that may harm both of them. In the meantime there doesn’t seem to be any interest in verifying or refuting the sensitivity tests RyanO published of S(09).
Yes. And not just find fault, but find dire, extreme, godawful, damning, unbelievable, irresponsible, criminal, mendacious, careless, wanton fault. Fault so bad you have to ask a cartoonist to draw a picture of him.
I am just relieved to find out that the “rapdly warming” Antarctic is not actually warming, rapidly.
Cheer up everybody, it is not a matter of life or death after all.
matt (Comment#69533) —
Thoughtful remarks.
I think RyanO will be seen to have won the science issues, as shown by Reviews B, C, and D, and as pursued in the recent conversations here that have been led by Kenneth Fritsch, SteveF, and Carrick (others too, sorry to stop at three).
Regarding the meta-issues, the usual tribes have adopted the expected stances. There’s plenty of ambiguity — grist for the mill on both sides. I’d say RyanO loses on points.
The biggest winners are those on each side favoring polarization.
AMac,
I don’t really care one whit about the niceness rankings of Ryan, Eric, Gavin, Steve, Phil, or the guy down the street. Bottom line — Steig joins Mann and Rahmstorf in the group of the climate scientists whose studies were trumpeted to the world while being, in fact, completely worthless.
Nick–I think my title is apt.
It appears Eric did all three:
Writing a review that he seems to suggest did not say what he intended to communicate (and possibly never meant), he recommended iRidge, then he wrote a post criticizing it. Writing so poorly to make your review communicate the opposite of what you intend is called writing a “lousy” review.
He did other things that make me think badly of him as well. I stick by my titles. You may not like them– but it’s sure looking like they are born out as more information trickles to the top. If Eric doesn’t want nearly everyone in the world to agree with me, he ought to shut up because his little outburstts are tending to reveals truths that don’t reflect well on him.
There’s a very good short sub-thread at the latest CA post with respect to the switch from TTLS to iridge. Ted Carmichael offers a fresh analysis of Reviewer A’s stance, then bernie and two of O’10’s authors (SMcI and NicL) weigh in with their thoughts.
Echoing Lucia in comment 69543, there is a principle in the law of contract interpretation that holds that the best evidence of what the parties to a contract meant, are the words that the parties used in the contract. If a writer intends to communicate a particular meaning, it is the responsibility of the writer to unambiguously communicate that meaning. Steig cannot write “A” and later fault the reader for not knowing that what Steig really meant was not “A”.
Lucia, you should correct the spelling of John Nielsen-Gammon in the title and the text.
Steve McIntyre has all the details on CA. Here is a clear and brief summary.
The first submission of the paper was based on TTLS. In the first review, Steig found fault. In the response to this review, O’Donnell ran a check by running iridge and reported in the response to the review that the results showed slightly more warming than TTLS but still only about half of that reported by Steig. O’Donnell felt TTLS was still the best way to go and “future work†could look into iridge.
In the second submission, TTLS results were again reported. In Steig’s review, he wrote: “My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3.†Notice the word “insist,†which is exactly what the editor did. In the decision letter, the editor called for “further major revision.â€
In the third submission, after a major revision the iridge results were reported. In Steig’s review, he said iridge “makes sense†but then went on to talk about biases. By this time, the editor must have been pretty hacked off at Steig himself. Steig insisted the ‘mostly likely’ trends be shown and now he wants to talk about biases? The editor did not even show Steig the response to his review comments. What does that tell you?
A few minor word changes were made for the fourth submission and it was published. Come on. Be honest. Wouldn’t you be hacked off if a reviewer “insisted†you use a certain method and then publicly criticized you for it?
Will J. Richardson (Comment#69549)
Rather than look to the common law, I think sharia is a better legal model for climate-related matters. Under sharia, infidels have no legal standing to bring charges against or answer charges brought by one of the faithful. That O10 was substantive enough to warrant publication while expressly criticizing work that had become iconic (a magazine cover, no less) was itself the problem.
A rather petty, rearguard action with shifting rationale to delay, rewrite or prevent publication of overt criticism is justified because the target is a non-believer. It is forbidden to regard this as bad form.
A believer may delete infidel comments on blogs, ignore their tenured scholars, vilify ‘McIntryrism’ (which I guess is defined as the crime of using math to point out sloppiness or presumption by one of the faithful) and caricature them at all times a la Trenberth. However, having to engage them substantively is simply unacceptable and a source of justifiable indignation.
The “knucklehead” comment makes perfect sense in this context. A decision to condone publication of heresy aligns one with the infidels and thus deserving of scorn.
McIntyrism: the crime of using mathematics to point out sloppiness and bias in climate science.
Knucklehead: One who does not understand that McIntyrism is a crime.
Anyone who has had a scientific paper reviewed will know that what Steig was doing was far outside the norm. For example, for the initial review comments to be longer than the original submission is extremely unusual. If Steig was so confident in the fact that he had done a reasonable job as a reviewer, why on earth was he reticent about making the review public, after the paper had been published? As others have pointed out, Steig (or Steig with input from others) threw up a large volume of chaff to obscure, delay, and deter O’Donnell et al. Then as a final contemptuous trick, Steig chose to criticize the modified paper for attempting to follow one of the diversions that Steig had introduced and encouraged. Then, as usual in climatology, as the facts are made available, the whining escalates. Fortunately, in this case, the independent review has been conducted on various blogs like this, and the facts are available for inspection by any interested party.
What is rather disquieting is how close George Tobin’s parody is to the truth.
OT but bets for Feb temps up yet? I’m going for -0.1C. Hoping for a double whammy LOL poor ol Steig and Co LOL.
Lucia,
You should do a Valentines Day ♥ Haiku topic. It might counteract the playground posturing (not you, just in general) of the past week a little bit.
Andrew
Bugs
Have a look at Stan’s observation at #69542 above.
And maybe also have a look at my comments about concoctions on the previous thread.
We are not dealing with the finer points of science, but with the systematic concocting of science to make political hay. That conclusion does not even make me a skeptic [and much less so a “denier”] but rather someone who, like many others, has connected the dots of climate “science”.
Re: George Tobin (Comment#69556)
Excellent point; particularly if you include “taqiyya”.
The ‘team’ is lacking a good coach. A good coach who would tell the team that they are setting themselves for a complete blowout.
Instead they are doing what any team that coaches itself is going to eventually do: blow it big time.
If you are ticking off Dr. N-G, you are accomplishing something difficult to do.
Shub Niggurath (Comment#69559) February 14th, 2011 at 10:13 am
You got the dog whistle without any problems.
Climate science is much broader than anything McI addresses, but he gives the impression it’s not.
Climate science is much more than the individuals McI attacks, but he gives the impression it’s not.
Climate science is always under attack, but those who criticise climate science on blogs such as WUWT get a free pass, giving the impression that the only problems with climate science is the work done by the scientists. He endorses some more garbage from Archibald that claims the sea ice extent is not changing. There’s a free pass for any ‘auditors’, but the only sound is crickets chirping.
hunter–
Are they ticking JNG off? I think he just doesn’t see everything 100% the way eric or some in the rabitt warren see things. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s pissed off.
Is it so difficult so spell someone’s name right?
.
John
.
Nielsen
.
–
.
Gammon
Bugs
So, climate scientists are never wrong, even if their statistics are?
Anyone who criticizes climate scientists must be attacked in anyway possible, as climate scientists are always morally in the right, even if their statistics are wrong?
Do you have a point?
Bugs
How did Steig 09 get its “free pass” through peer review?
Yeah, bugs, climate science is ‘broad’ and ‘deep’. Just that its supposed poster children are all orphans.
Neven–Fixed. Also I emailed JNG on another matter and apologized for the spelling. He didn’t seemed worried about it.
Golf charley– We don’t know that Steig 09 got a “free pass”. We only know it was accepted, published and highlighted in Nature.
I have a view on this that I have not read at the blogs that I wrote at CA. I think it fits well with Reviewer A’s intent to get some concessions on the warming differences for West Antarctica between S(09) and O(10). To understand it you have to read all the Reviewer A reviews and the replies to them. Tell me if you do not think Reviewer A was conflicted when he saw the iRidge give somewhat WA greater warming but was at the same time continuing to argue for a lower truncation parameter in O(10)’s use with the TTLS algorithm with the hopes of seeing greater WA warming.
From CA:
As I read the O(10) reviews from Reviewer A and the replies, I got the distinct feeling that Reviewer A was in a conundrum since iRidge got a little of that West Antarctica warming back that Reviewer A was looking for, but at the same time did it using a method not used in S(09) and one, as I recall, that was not necessarily recommended by other Team members (Mann). He may merely have wanted better literature justification by the authors of O(10), who by now he knew were doing literature searches and reading in good detail and understanding. He may have wanted to see the graphs that iRidge produced as opposed to those with lesser warming, but thought there better be ample justification in going against the Team. In summary a reviewer desperate for warming concessions yet conflicted by the use of iRidge.
An alternative explanation might be that since Reviewer A, after all, was still pushing for a change in the truncation parameter with TTLS that he might have judged would gain back even more warming than going to iRidge? I am rather certain he would liked to have seen the O(10) authors go back the drawing board so he could see what algorithm and what truncation parameter resulted in the most West Antarctica warming and then perhaps argue for that method.
If indeed Reviewer A was on a mission to get as much WA warming as possible out of O(10) and let the O(10) authors do the work (with the editor hopefully going along) I think his actions here are consistent with that picture.
Lucia, I accept your correction of my paraphrasing of Bugs’s comment. I would not know iridge from R. Do Nature editors and their peer reviewers, know more than me, if so what went wrong, and what should Nature do about it?
golf charley (Comment#69587) February 14th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Science is a progression. Scientists and the papers they produce can, indeed, be wrong. If you look at the history of the study of CO2 and the greenhouse effect, it is a meandering path of over 100 years of research by many scientists.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
The science has honed in and refined the knowledge we have, it has created a body of knowledge that has stood the test of time. Scientists are currently working to advance that body of knowledge. Various people insist that scientists get everything right first time. If they don’t, or even if they do, they are accused of fraud, incompetence and conspiracy, with friendly leftists politicians.
Bugs
Thank you for your considered and rational response.
Irrespective of the conclusions, politics morality ethics etc, should S09 stand or fall in the light of the latest scientific and mathematical evidence?
Lucia,
Re Steigs ‘free pass’ remember it took almost a year for the paper to be accepted by Nature. Perhaps he was getting a lot of trouble from Reviewer X.
Remember too Trenberth’s dismissive comment about it being hard to make data where none exists.
So Eric was obviously criticised heavily from ‘within’ and has now been trounced from ‘without’.
No wonder he is feeling bruised and battered.
bugs (Comment#69645) February 15th, 2011 at 5:31 am
Yes. For example, Steig’s announcement on RC – some 8 months ago – that Lucia’s site is “dishonest”. AFAIK, it was an act of petty retaliation for Lucia merely pointing out that Steig was wrong in his criticism of Andrew Revkin and Roger Pielke.
Not only was that an unwise provocation by Steig, it was quite unsatisfying in that he did not provide any evidence by which we might assess which of the two might be a Bulldog for Truth and who might be otherwise.
At those times when Lucia expends energy to relieve me of my ignorance, I experience gratitude, not a long simmering grudge. Too bad for Steig if he did not do the same. From my viewpoint, a slap-in-the-face has come back to bite Steig on the ass.
BueIce2HotSea–
Oddly, on a threat at JNG, I speculated that something that made me angry in Eric’s post might have made RyanO agree. That was a perceived taunt. (http://blogs.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/02/steig_this_is_not_complicated.html) Turns out… nope. Ryan wrote:
So, while the perceived taunt made me angry, that’s not what got Ryan.
And now…. Steig calling me dishonest didn’t get me angry. I wrote what I wrote in the article you link (providing quotes), and I stand by what I wrote in recent articles. I can deal with Steig calling me dishonest. I’m a big girl. I blog. I know people are going to advance theories about me that I think are untrue.
What got me angry was Steig posting what I perceive as a series of statements that give the appearance the Steig was not Reviewer A, along with his then posting criticism, and slams that many would think reflected badly on him if they knew he was Reviewer A and had access to what he wrote in his reviews.
Believe it or not, I didn’t even remember Steig had written that about me!
OK, so if Ryan explains himself, and clarifies what he actually thinks, you believe him. If Steig does that, it is time to dissect every nuance and word and try to understand what he really meant, and not take him at his word.
BlueIce2HotSea,
Where did Steig call Lucia dishonest? I can see Steig saying he thought Pielke was close to being dishonest.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/who-you-gonna-call/comment-page-1/#comment-147312
If Steig really did undermine O’Donnell’s paper in such a subtle way that discussions on the meaning and intention of words are ongoing for days, then he was awfully subtle.
Also Steig said in his RC post:
“O’Donnell et al. suggest several improvements to the methodology we used, most of which I agree with in principle.”
So can’t we focus on these please?
Lucia –
It’s easy to empathize with Ryan O’s frustration after he was maneuvered into a public charade: should he continue to overtly mask Steig’s role as Reviewer A or end the pretense by breaking his pact. Damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.
My frustration with bugs and company was over the irony and chutzpah of them complaining here that Steig’s integrity was unfairly criticised. Steig’s own history in that regard needed to be acknowleged.
I’m done now. Thanks, that feels better.
Steve Milesworthy–
Steig said a lot of things. It appears to me that he said somethings to foster the impression that the document was fresh to him at the time of publication, that he first formulated his opinion then, that his opinion of that document was favorable on first view and that none of these things were true.
So, if you really want to focus on the sentence you quoted, we can. But, when we focus on that, I’ll be writing stuff like this:
Update:(2011-02-15T14:10:50+00:00):
Steig has been confirmed as reviewer A. Moreover, we know that by the time he wrote the two post above, he’d received the final version, which he could easily compare to the versions he already had. The final version was virtually identical to version 3 which he had commented on as Reviewer 3, as can be seen in this side by side comparison (pdf). As the differences are trivial, we can see that Eric’s “initial-initial” opinion of the version of the paper is revealed in Eric’s review 3. The first paragraph of the review ends with: “However, I will refrain from commenting further on editorial matters for now, because the manuscript remains flawed in a very basic way and will need to be re-reviewd[sic] in any case.”
I find it very difficult to square eric’s public statement that “overall, I like it.” or “initial, generally favorable opinion of the paper ” with his initial-initial assessment that it is “flawed in a very basic way”.
[ End Update]
Blue
I’m just saying that you may have mis-identified what made me angry.
He seems to have liked it because he said (2nd review):
“I appreciate the great amount of work that has gone into this manuscript, and the thorough documentation of the results. I also am convinced that the methods discussed are a substantive contribution to the literature and represent real improvements to the methods used in earlier work. I also think that main findings of the manuscript – that Steig et al.’s overestimate mean Antarctic temperature trends, particularly in winter in the Ross Sea region – are likely to be correct. This is important because it has implications for the causes of recent Antarctic temperature changes, for which the distribution of surface temperature variability and trends is a key test”
The tone of the third review suggests frustration to me. And it is riddled with spelling errors suggesting it was written in a hurry.
“Although I mentioned this problem in my last review, O’Donnell et al. have not adequateky [sic] addressed it.
Here is the problem, once again: [you knuckleheaded fools (?)]”
He does however say:
“I emphasize again that I think that it should be published eventually, because it definitey [sic] has the potential to be a solid and oft-cited contribution.”
Perhaps, due to lack of time, he did not adequately review the third version (avoiding comments on “editorial” matters is short for “I can’t be bothered with details now”).
Steve–
While it is true the review contains some statements indicating there is something potentially of value in the paper, this review hardly reads like it is on the balance favorable. It is difficult to square what the any of the reviews actually says with the notion that Steig “liked” the manuscript he was reviewing. The paragraph you quote is followed by this:
It is rather rare for a reviewer to “like” a paper
*that “retains several important flaws in the original version“,
* whose publication in the proposed journal he “cannot support”
* that he advises requires revision and re-review of those revisions.
But it isn’t only the 2nd paragraph in the introduction that suggests Steig did not “like” the 2nd manuscript. The summary section– headlined in bold begins:
So, in other words, the argument for showing results in the main figures of the main text is weak.
Interestingly enough, though you highlight Steig saying he thinks “he methods discussed are a substantive contribution to the literature and represent real improvements to the methods used in earlier work”, Steig’s more detailed criticism in the paper strongly recommends that the authors modify their method in a way that would permit one to conclude kgdn=7 is not the optimal value. But that’s the result their method points to.
So, it would appear Steig likes something (though we can’t be sure what) about their method– provided he can get them to change their method sufficiently to conclude kgdn≠7!
It is pretty rare for anyone to claim they “like” a paper if the argument for the main figures of the main text are weak.
I think review 2 conveys a very strong impression that Steig on the balance, did not like the manuscript as written. The did suggest he thought there was some potentially publishable nugget in there somewhere that might be uncovered somehow after numerous revisions– but the manuscripts as they stand? He didn’t like them. Reviews 1 and reviews 3 convey this even more strongly.
Oh?
Yet somehow, Steig’s RC discussion of the paper — which was nearly identical to the 3rd revisions– also gave the impression he did not “like” the paper. It seems that he somehow “magically” came to suddenly re-discover the things he didn’t like about nearly identical manuscript 3, and which whether contrained for time or not– he did discuss in his review. when he first read that.
Steig may well have been frustrated at this point. He hadn’t been able to get the authors to give in to his insistence they tweak their methodology to think results using TTLS with kgnd≠7 were “better”. It seems he may have known the other reviewers were favorable to publication and he knew Broccoli hadn’t rejected the article. All this may have frustrated him. Or not.
But if he was frustrated for these reasons, I don’t see why anyone would consider this evidence he “liked” the paper. To the contrary–it would suggest he didn’t want manuscripts with the conclusions and methodology described in v1, v2 or v3 published. That’s not “liking” the paper.
Out of curiosity– you suggested he was frustrated. By your theory, what do you think was causing him to be frustrated and more importantly, how is this consistent with “liking” the paper?
Lucia –
An unintended interpretation of my comment could be: Steig slapped the Bulldog for Truth and she bit him on the ass. I apologize for my imprecision.
I long ago speculated on what makes you angry and it is not when the big boys want to call you names and play rough. My guess is that is what you call fun. However, when someone is stubbornly vague, ambiguous or wants to play fast and loose with Truth, now that really pisses you off. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
My partial satisfaction with the current outcome is that serendipitous karmic justice is balancing the scales. I will be fully satisfied when the principals involved in this dust-up have a good laugh and get back to working on improving the science, preferably on a common project. My hope is that it’s only a matter growing thicker skins.
In his realclimate post he closes by saying:
“This probably means going back to the drawing board to write up another paper, taking into account those suggestions of O’Donnell et al. that are valid, but hopefully avoiding their mistakes.”
So he likes the method but not the way it was used, and never did like their application of the method.
Yes there is a certain pretense being maintained to disguise his reviewership. But he knows that O’Donnell knows that he is the reviewer, so it’s completely harmless fiction that tells the true(ish) story of his experience with the paper from start to end, including his feeling that the first version wasn’t much better than the blog posts:
“those obviously unsupportable claims found in the original blog posts [and in the first version?] are absent”
He couldn’t really have written an article that said “If only they’d applied the method the way I told ’em their paper would be fine”.
Clearly there are valid alternative interpretations to the story other than Steig being a subtle and devious operator. I get the impression that Steig DOES NOT DO subtle!
BlueIce2HotSea:
That’s about it.
Steve Milesworthy
It’s not harmless to mislead RC readers, climate-blog addicts etc.
Let me fix this:
Let me quote part of my previously stated view of the partial quote you post above. I will place that quote snip in context.
However, on Feb 1, I did not yet know for sure Eric was a reviewer, much less Reviewer A.
Once I knew Eric was reviewer A, the sentence Eric included in his article at RC seemed to me (and still seems to me) crafted to give the impression that Eric’s assessments of what is obviously unsupportable has been independently confirmed by the peer review process. Bearing in mind that other reviews really do appear largely favorable to the first draft of O’Donnell, I think Eric’s sentence was, to say the least, misleading.
In response to this:
Eric could easily have written this. That would have been honest.
He may not do it well but that doesn’t mean he didn’t try. I think he tried to do it, and it backfired on him.
Did Steig actually like the O10 paper?
From the RC post: “A brief history of knowledge about Antarctic temperatures” December 9th
From the RC “West Antarctica: Still Warming” discussion thread:
–
I guess the answer depends on what day you ask him the question. 🙂
As a reviewer, Steig was entitled to say exactly what he liked, and be thankful if the paper was changed in light of his comments. The editor could then do as he wanted given knowledge of the conflict of interest and what the other reviewers said.
“As one would expect of a peer-reviewed paper, those obviously unsupportable claims found in the original blog posts are absent, and in my view O’Donnell et al. is a perfectly acceptable addition to the literature.”
My quote out of context was not deliberate. But this sentence is not central to the argument of the article and the “unsupportable claims” are not listed in the article – they could have referred to anything (surely all blogs are well known for including many unsupportable claims), so at this point nothing has been publicly conceded by O’Donnell by excluding things from the final paper.
“It’s not harmless to mislead RC readers, climate-blog addicts etc. ”
Are you being facetious?
Steve
Agreed. I’m just pointing out that you did take that out of context. My reading requires it to be left in context.
I never said it was central to the argument of the RC article.
That they could refer to anything is one of the features that makes it a really nasty, irresponsible thing for someone who acted as a reviewer– and a hostile one– to insert into his article.
Is that question rhetorical? Whether it is or not, my answer is no, I am not being facetious.
You wrote
When I read that, it seems to me you suggest that as long as Ryan knew Steig was reviewer A, it is harmless for Steig to maintain a certain fiction. I am not being facetious when I contradict your claim. Steig was writing a blog post for public consumption, and the “fiction” was perpetrated against readers of his blog post. That is a much larger group than Ryan.
I think you will find that not-withstanding whatever traditions you may think are held by academia, AMS,peer review or anything else, members of the public aren’t uniformly going to say “Oh. Sure. As long as you only mislead me and people like me, that’s ok then.”
bugs (Comment#69818) February 16th, 2011 at 5:13 am
I have read Steig’s explanations and much can be taken at face value. But spin such as that by 65grypo in Layman Lurker (Comment#69848) cannot be taken at face value.
Here’s my “spin”. 1) It was Steig’s insistence to the journal editor that resulted in a major revision and the replacement of TTLS with IRIDGE. 2) The change to IRIDGE resulted in higher reported temperature trends, but after publication Steig impugned the study (and O’Donnell et al) by implying that the choice of IRIDGE was suspicious in that IRIDGE “dramatically underestimated long-term trends”.
Getting put into a zugzwang like that would have been a last straw for most of us.
“That they could refer to anything is one of the features that makes it a really nasty, irresponsible thing for someone who acted as a reviewer– and a hostile one– to insert into his article.”
No it isn’t because it’s a relatively mild throwaway comment, and anyway we already know that Steig disagrees with O’Donnell on any number of things.
I did not word my point about Steig knowing Ryan knowing Steig was reviewer very well. Because Steig knows this he knows that what he says will be read by Ryan in that context, and potentially rebutted by Ryan revealing Steig as Reviewer A.
But it still leaves Steig in a position where he wants to make public his scientific disagreements while wanting to maintain his entitlement to anonymity. I think you are being a bit precious if you are annoyed about people not telling the whole truth all the time, especially if as is suggested the substantive points in the blog posts are like those in his final review.
Steve–
I think all this means is it’s a comment that doesn’t bother you. I do not consider this a mile throwaway comment.
Oh? Are you suggesting that Steig thinks it’s ok for Ryan to reveal Steig was Reviewer A? Because I am under the very distinct impression that Steig thought Ryan was not permitted to do that and that revealing this information during the course of any rebuttal was dirty pool.
You can think something I say is ‘precious’ all you like Steve.
I could equally well suggest that I think it is
1) it is “precious” that Eric is annoyed that someone would publish his reviews and reveal he is reviewer a,
2) it is “precious” for Eric to first criticize a paper in private, then when it the paper is made public, announce that his initial opinion is he likes it and then a few months later after he has had “time” to look at it better, publish the criticisms he had a along and
3) it is “precious” for you to think it is harmless to keep his role as reviewer concealed from the public when he does (2).
I could say that. But I think my observing that I think all these things are “precious” is pretty far down on the list of reasons for criticizing eric.
Steve Milesworthy,
.
I think Steig should have followed his own advice to Ryan O’Donnell: respond in the peer review literature.
.
The endless spinning about the paper is just a waste of everyone’s time. If Steig and co-authors truly believe O(10) is not accurate, they owe it to themselves to write a formal comment and allow O’Donnell et al a formal reply. Comments like:
.
“I’ll have more to say about O’Donnell et al., but overall, I like it.”
followed later by:
“I’m now being blamed for their writing a lousy paper?”
.
along with the plainly hostile content of his several reviews, are remarkable only for for their inconsistency and for their capacity to infuriate people. The peer review literature is the correct place. But IMO, S(09) is so wrong that I do not think they will ever actually try to formally refute O(10).
.
Blogging in an echo chamber where you can spin and control what comments may be posted makes it so much easier to cast unjustified doubt.
Heh, SteveF. After introducing the “West Antarctica: Still Warming” post by refering back to his Dec 9 post and his “…initial, generally favorable opinion” of O10, he can’t resist making a hoity toity remark to you in the very first comment of the discussion thread:
All of this when he had seen version #3 (and it’s “markedly different” content) many months earlier.
That is funny Layman. Part of an in-line response by Steig (10 Feb) was:
harold,
“I may not bother with a rebuttal to Journal of Climate, because in a couple years temperatures in West Antarctica will probably have reached such an extreme that none of our ‘reconstructions’ will matter.”
Had not seen that. Very funny… not the content, the remarkably snotty, arrogant attitude. No surprise though that he was already preparing reasons to NOT generate a rebuttal; to paraphrase: “All this jousting with fools is so beneath us.” May I offer a more pragmatic explanation? S(09) is just too weak to defend.
Bugs,
Your impersonation of Smithers is remarkable, even touching.
Lucia,
[quote]
Oh? Are you suggesting that Steig thinks it’s ok for Ryan to reveal Steig was Reviewer A? Because I am under the very distinct impression that Steig thought Ryan was not permitted to do that and that revealing this information during the course of any rebuttal was dirty pool. [/quote]
I didn’t say Steig thought it OK for Ryan to release his name. I said it would be clear to Steig that Ryan (or McIntyre) might release his name if there were an advantage to be gained, and that feeling would have been in his mind from the start.
If I had the self-confidence that Steig appears to possess *and* I wanted to thoroughly undermine O’Donnell, wouldn’t a better way have been to withdraw myself as a reviewer with the intention of writing a comment listing all the obvious faults I’d identified.
Perhaps he should have submitted a formal comment. I never said I thought he handled things well, only that it doesn’t come across as being intentionally devious. What he has said in public aligns with what he has already said in private.
Steve–
No one has suggested he did what you describe. I have no reason to believe Steig concocted any long term plan during peer reviews. I also didn’t suggest he murdered anyone.
But, the fact that he didn’t do anything no one has suggested, nor would go as far as you describe in the hypothetical of someone who is extremely devious does change my interpretation of the things he did do:
* in the face of speculation he was reviewer A, he did leave a series of comments that would seem to indicate he was not reviewer a.
* in his RC posts, he left utterly unnecessary comments saying he initially liked the paper, when we now all know that he thought it was basically flawed— in particular the methodology and results were flawed.
* these things could only succeed in misleading, and to an extent did, succeed in misleading people as to his views and attitude toward the paper, and could only do so to the extent he could remain anonymous.
As for the formal comment: If he believes he is correct, of course he should submit a formal comment. RyanO will then rebut. My impression is that RC has always told people that the proper way to rebut a peer reviewed paper is to submit the formal comment and RyanO had already done the computation to engage the criticisms in review 3. He is more than prepared to rebut.
A bit off-topic:
Some insightful “blog science” by Nick Stokes is up at his website. He ran an emulation of the Steig’09 algorithm, and presents an image of Antarctica’s warming with 3 principal components retained. This largely matches Steig’09’s finding. He then repeats the analysis with 4 through 7 PCs retained.
This is a nice “bridge” between Steig’09 and O’Donnell’10.
.
Also posted to RC’s “From Blog to Science” thread — I’m no longer blocked from submitting to their moderation queue 🙂
In the same vein, see RyanO’s post at tAV, The Two-and-One-Half PC Solution. He presents a pretty complete set of Sensitivity Analysis images for both S’09’s and O’10’s algorithms. The question addressed is, “What picture of Antarctic warming emerges if we “spike” selected land-station records by adding a defined pseudo-trend of warming or cooling?”
Amac, you have your links/posts mixed up. Your linked post is to Roman’s not Ryan’s (Roman’s is definitely interesting as well). Ryan’s post is here.
Re: Layman Lurker (Feb 17 09:47),
Whoops! Thanks for the correction.