> So that there is no doubt, I will re-iterate that your taunts contained untrue
> observations.

What then were these “untrue observations”?

John Hunter

I doubt that, even if capable, he really wants to understand the statistical issues – too threatening to a closed mind.

Steve: Can anyone explain to me the logic of someone who can simultaneously write that I had written that observations were “incorrect” and then claim that I had made no response indicating that anything was “untrue”. So that there is no doubt, I will re-iterate that your taunts contained untrue observations. We all eagerly wait for Hunter to spend the week/two that he says that he will require to understand the statistical issues involved in our articles. Maybe Hunter will be able to confirm to us soon that he has done so.

I seem to recall you practically demanding for Steve to perform Monte Carlo simulations, produce a CV, etc, as part of recent discussions here. Do you think that maybe he had “other important things to do,” too?

I think you’d benefit much more from a statistical education (not only to “make some valid contributions to the Mann/McIntyre debate” but in your professional endeavors, too), rather than spending so much time googling Steve’s background.

In Australia, and in many other places, the affiliation given along with the authorship
of a paper generally indicates the umberalla under which the work was done — i.e. that this is the organisation which gave both moral and funding support to the work and also
approved of its findings (in my own organisation, papers have to undergo a quite
strict internal refereeing procedure prior to being submitted to a journal). Now, your GRL paper recorded your affiliation as “Northwest Exploration Company”, a company of which you have been President. I find this rather strange, as you continually state that your “climate” work is entirely self-funded. Can you please clarify the situation and indicate exactly what support you have had from Northwest Exploration Company over the past few years — after all, they are apparently the organisation responsible for your GRL paper.

Steve: It’s a private company and has no employees. A few posts ago you accused this company of having substantial fossil fuel interests – another example of you throwing around innuendo when you had no basis for making any assertions at all in the matter. It has some assets from business that I’ve done in the past. When you file with GRL, there’s a compulsory field for institution, which I couldn’t leave blank. So I used the company. If I’m doing climate research, I’m not doing business. That’s why this costs me money and since the market for exploration stocks has been pretty good, my inactivity has cost me quite a lot of money in opportunity cost. If I didn’t have any assets, I obviously wouldn’t be able to do this. It irritates me like crazy for some guy like Mann who’s inhaling public funds to send scurrilous and untrue statements about funding to try to stop publication of our articles. I wish that you would demonstrate any substantive interest in any of the issues raised here or showed any inclination to correct blatant misrepresentations at realclimate. I’m not averse to making money and if someone wanted to pay me to do this, I’d be happy. I’d still do things the same way.

Also you have failed to attend or criticize the proven conflict of interest that was the topic of this post.

You say:

> You’ve been hanging around this site for a long time.
> If you can learn enough in a week to contribute, then
> why don’t you do so?

(a) I didn’t say “a week”, I said “a week or two” (two can play at nitpicking)

(b) The sentence following your comment gave you your answer:

> I would have to be convinced that your points are
> important and not just nit-picking “¢’‚¬? which is why
> it would be useful to know where you are coming from.

– so far, you have not convinced me that it would be worth my time.

(snip)