Comments on: Mann et al., submitted to Climatic Change, 2003 http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/27/mann-et-al-submitted-to-climatic-change-2003/ by Steve McIntyre Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:32:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: John A http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/27/mann-et-al-submitted-to-climatic-change-2003/#comment-32293 Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:56:51 +0000 /?p=118#comment-32293 They submitted the paper. Do we know what was in this sacred document and why Stephen Schneider did not publish it?

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/27/mann-et-al-submitted-to-climatic-change-2003/#comment-32292 Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:11:36 +0000 /?p=118#comment-32292 John, they did submit the paper. A comment in Some Thoughts on Disclosure http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66 might make more sense now. Steve

]]> By: John A http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/27/mann-et-al-submitted-to-climatic-change-2003/#comment-32291 Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:28:54 +0000 /?p=118#comment-32291 So Jones and Mann cite as conclusive evidence a document written by one of them, that was submitted the year before, but never published?

That’s an interesting trend. Maybe we could cite as evidence, documents that we thought about sending but never got around to it…or which existed only in our heads.

Lest you think I’m being facetious, just last week we had the full scary headlines that the "Final proof: Global Warming is a Manmade Disaster" had been found, only to discover that it was only a press release by the Scripps Institute in California and that no paper had been completed or submitted for peer review by any competent journal.

It’s an interesting technique – announce the conclusions and then submit the paper and if the paper isn’t published, who cares? By the time skeptics complain, it’s old news

I’ve been a skeptic of the technique called "Announce Results straight to the Press before submitting the paper" ever since Pons and Fleischmann did it with Cold Fusion in the late ’80s, but it’s all too frequent in climate science.

Citation as evidence, papers that cannot be verified or checked is simply Orwellian. How many more "memory holes" are there?

]]>