Comments on: Errors Matter #2: the "Different" Method of Rutherford et al [2005] http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/12/errors-matter-2-the-different-method-of-rutherford-et-al-2005/ by Steve McIntyre Mon, 20 May 2013 14:30:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/12/errors-matter-2-the-different-method-of-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-31668 Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:51:57 +0000 /?p=53#comment-31668 what happened next?

]]> By: John G. Bell http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/12/errors-matter-2-the-different-method-of-rutherford-et-al-2005/#comment-31667 Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:45:03 +0000 /?p=53#comment-31667 I understood that some of the MBH98 dataset had been lost. Wouldn’t that make it impossible for it to be reused in the 2005 study. It would then become somewhat strange that the number of indicators in the two steps remain the same. wouldn’t it?

Steve: No, I’m satisfied that the MBH98 data is adequately archived. The dispute is over their source code, as no one (including me) has been able to replicate their results. If you look at the various Replication posts (see the Category in the right frame), I’ve reported on many replication problems. You may be thinking of the Crowley dataset which has been “misplaced”. I’ve posted some comments on the 2005 study – see Rutherford et al.

]]>