Comments on: Cook et al. [2004]

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:45:55 +0000

So what’s the next step on that study, Steve? How about writing up the comparison for a journal of record?

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:26:16 +0000

If you want to see another report from the same area, see here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=41

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 13:24:14 +0000

That’s fine. An independant reassessment with new sampling is still GREAT. That way, you really know what behavior accross the general area is and if it is highly variable.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:00:58 +0000

The issue is not that the original data were fraudulent. I’m sure that they were what was reported. The issue is not reporting the later data.

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:33:33 +0000

TCO, sometimes I think you don’t get it. If Steve goes and samples Cedars somewhere near the Gaspe site (can’t be the same, no one knows where it is), and gets completely different findings, the AGW crowd will just blow it off. Incorrectly sampled, ignores appropriate sites, not properly treated, etc etc and etc. Then finally, they’ll go on using Jacoby’s series and ignore anything else. Why not, no one in their professional field is calling them on it, and there is a legion of people who think like MItch, John Hunter, and others, who even think it wrong to check on these kind of details, preferring to believe in the honesty and probity of the current researchers who have uncovered the truth.

All that said, I agree that it is definitely worth going and doing at least one original piece of research like this. Perhaps Steve could get a real dendro person to co-author and help publish. Why, perhaps Steve could ask Danzero to assist. Steve, how about it. Sadly I am too far away to help out, unless you want some Southern hemisphere sampling ?

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:05:21 +0000

I meant, I haven’t seen or it didn’t stick out the Briffa stuff and the peilke comment.

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:04:13 +0000

It’s the same size issue either way. Some forms of fraud, you will likely never catch, Steve. Resampling in general vicinity would be a killer move. it may be weaker in showing fruad…but it’s stronger in terms of understanding the true situation.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:52:37 +0000

The Gaspe chronology is data mining. THey were unable to replicate the result in their repeat sampling (which they neiter reported nor archived.)

Cedar sites elsewhere don’t show the upspike of Gaspe.

There are two issues: one what the Gaspe cedar growth is. But even if I went there and didn’t get a hockey stick in the chronology, that’s only a small part of the story. The bigger issue is the non-reporting of adverse data by the Hockey Team. If mining promoters didn’t report bad holes, you’d call for the security commission or even the police. I mean that literally. The NSF needs a wake-up call on Jacoby from someone. I tried but they blew me off.

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:39:51 +0000

No, I haven’t seen that stuff nor do I understand what you are driving at.

By: TCO

TCO — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 03:38:52 +0000

Nope…not going to let you wiggle away on this. The STANDARD way for taking care of these types of errors is to redo the experiment. Do I need to figure out how Pons and Fleishman screwed up, to show that in my lab the damn palladium doesn’t promote fusion? Your way is not “wrong”, but it’s NOT the only way (or preferred way…if you have the dollars, time). And if you aren’t getting it done your way, do it the normal way. And I already said take a dendro guy and pick the right sort of a site. Who cares if they contest it, if you know that you picked the right sort of site anyhow. to be honest, this goes to the point that an individual site might have fertilizer effect or avalanches or whatever. You’re better off hitting another site, since you don’t really trust the sparsity of sites anyhow.