<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Science Editorial</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/</link>
	<description>by Steve McIntyre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:29:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kennedy, Editor of Science, on PBS &#171; Climate Audit</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-247540</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kennedy, Editor of Science, on PBS &#171; Climate Audit]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:07:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-247540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] of them. I&#8217;ve discussed Science in particular in a number of posts, including the following Science Editorial, Science Editorial #2, Letter re Esper, Kilimanjaro Data and others. To date, Science&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of them. I&#8217;ve discussed Science in particular in a number of posts, including the following Science Editorial, Science Editorial #2, Letter re Esper, Kilimanjaro Data and others. To date, Science&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John G. Bell</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36426</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John G. Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:57:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Monday, Feb 13th, a lengthy article was published in the New York Times. &quot;Reporters Find Science Journals Harder to Trust, but Not Easy to Verify&quot; by Julie Bosman.  Donald Kennedy got a spotlight for his work and Science was shown on the top of a stack of journals in a photo.   A central quote was &quot;Now news organizations say they are starting to look at science journals a bit more skeptically.&quot;

Good work Julie Bosman!  I hope she stays interested.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Monday, Feb 13th, a lengthy article was published in the New York Times. &#8220;Reporters Find Science Journals Harder to Trust, but Not Easy to Verify&#8221; by Julie Bosman.  Donald Kennedy got a spotlight for his work and Science was shown on the top of a stack of journals in a photo.   A central quote was &#8220;Now news organizations say they are starting to look at science journals a bit more skeptically.&#8221;</p>
<p>Good work Julie Bosman!  I hope she stays interested.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kim</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36425</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36425</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To think that I saw it on Mulberry Street,
Betty with not a boop on.
===================================]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To think that I saw it on Mulberry Street,<br />
Betty with not a boop on.<br />
===================================</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kim</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36424</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dead Tree Press missed the boat on this one.  Ever read S. Clemons on James Fenimore Cooper and canoes, streams, and falling trees?  Almost as funny as the obvious sight of a naked Mann hiding behind a dead tree.
===================================================]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dead Tree Press missed the boat on this one.  Ever read S. Clemons on James Fenimore Cooper and canoes, streams, and falling trees?  Almost as funny as the obvious sight of a naked Mann hiding behind a dead tree.<br />
===================================================</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: term</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36423</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[term]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:15:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kim always like to run into a dead tree.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kim always like to run into a dead tree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kim</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36422</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:22:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Term limited himself to observing one dead tree at the edge of the forest.
============================================================================]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Term limited himself to observing one dead tree at the edge of the forest.<br />
============================================================================</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Dardinger</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36421</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dave Dardinger]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[re #49

IOW, he&#039;s not one of the cogniscenti and thus can be ignored.  I don&#039;t buy it.  There&#039;s nothing keeping anyone with the inside scoop from posting here to explain what Steve is deficient in.  Such guidance, however, has clearly not been given.  Nor, for that matter, has such reproof been offered in the supposed &#039;refutations&#039; of M&amp;M in the peer-reviewed press.  If you&#039;re an expert in tree-ring climatology, feel free to let him know what he&#039;s missing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>re #49</p>
<p>IOW, he&#8217;s not one of the cogniscenti and thus can be ignored.  I don&#8217;t buy it.  There&#8217;s nothing keeping anyone with the inside scoop from posting here to explain what Steve is deficient in.  Such guidance, however, has clearly not been given.  Nor, for that matter, has such reproof been offered in the supposed &#8216;refutations&#8217; of M&amp;M in the peer-reviewed press.  If you&#8217;re an expert in tree-ring climatology, feel free to let him know what he&#8217;s missing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: term</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36420</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[term]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:26:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In my opinion, Steve McIntyre sometimes gave some questions related to original data or papers. In most cases, However, he can not locate the innermost reasons or nature of published data. It seems that McIntyre&#039;s points is not correct and biased with personal feelings. If you want to assess the nature of one matter, you have to participate in the whole process and then you can give an objective appraisal for one thing. Otherwise in some way you saw only one tree at most cases rather than forest.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In my opinion, Steve McIntyre sometimes gave some questions related to original data or papers. In most cases, However, he can not locate the innermost reasons or nature of published data. It seems that McIntyre&#8217;s points is not correct and biased with personal feelings. If you want to assess the nature of one matter, you have to participate in the whole process and then you can give an objective appraisal for one thing. Otherwise in some way you saw only one tree at most cases rather than forest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TCO</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36419</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TCO]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:22:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Steve, scorched earth is too strong.  You are a nice guy in general and are doing a good job of hanging in there.  Still.  At times, you marginalize yourself by lapsing into the snideness or he-said, she-said or speculating too much on motives and the like.  You would be better served by pushing the twin points of your statistical arguments and the Mann et al refusal to share data.  Then outsiders will look at the two sides and wonder why the heck Mann doesn&#039;t share data.  However, if you&#039;re percieved as shriller, some will not bother reading further or will think of you as a crank.  Need to give people time to realize that Mann et al are scared to show how they skew the data.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve, scorched earth is too strong.  You are a nice guy in general and are doing a good job of hanging in there.  Still.  At times, you marginalize yourself by lapsing into the snideness or he-said, she-said or speculating too much on motives and the like.  You would be better served by pushing the twin points of your statistical arguments and the Mann et al refusal to share data.  Then outsiders will look at the two sides and wonder why the heck Mann doesn&#8217;t share data.  However, if you&#8217;re percieved as shriller, some will not bother reading further or will think of you as a crank.  Need to give people time to realize that Mann et al are scared to show how they skew the data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve McIntyre</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2005/08/27/science-editorial/#comment-36418</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve McIntyre]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=327#comment-36418</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim, please don&#039;t hijack this thread with a discussion of exclusion policies at your blog.

This topic was fully aired on Is It Karma?  I received complaints from some reputable people (lurkers) about that thread, so I closed the topic down. You made your points and were not denied access to this blog; but the topic had become a flame war. Again, please don&#039;t hijack this or other threads with discussion of exclusion policies at your blog or other unrelated hobbyhorses; it becomes hard to differentiate from being spammed by poker sites.

The same goes for everyone. Please - no more criticisms of Lambert on this thread.

If there is a groundswell that anyone feels absolutely obliged to further discuss Lambert&#039;s exclusion policies, please post a request on an open thread related to Lambert (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=275&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Lambert on Cosine Latitudes&lt;/a&gt;) and I will re-open Is It Karma as a sort of industrialized zone for behaviour between consenting adults in semi-private cubicles. In the meantime, I would prefer that there be no flashing in public threads, where there are some innocent civilians.

Tim, I don&#039;t see why you would make assertions about something about which you have no knowledge.  I reported being blocked from Mann&#039;s FTP site a long time ago.

Hans, I do not believe that it was the IT staff of the university for the following reason. Sometime after the FTP directory containing MBH98 proxy data suddenly materialized in November 2003 after publication our first EE article, I asked the university IT department when this directory first appeared in the publicly indexed part of Mann&#039;s FTP site. (There are private areas of the FTP site, which are not publicly indexed and inaccessible without knowing the exact file name in advance. If a directory is moved from unindexed to public indexed, the data does not change. I noticed this with the transfers of the MANNETAL98 directory which was in an unindexed part of the sdr directory and later moced to the pub directory without a change.)  In repsonse to my inquiry, the IT staff of the university said that they had nothing to do with Mann&#039;s FTP site and could not comment. It seemed odd as the site contained the reference *.virginia.edu, but that&#039;s what they said.

Some of my neighbours are interested in my debates. I asked one of them to check and he was blocked as well.  I&#039;m on a cable network, which (I think) works as a high-speed party line and it&#039;s possible that we don&#039;t have unique IP addresses from the point of view of the outside server. I don&#039;t know this, but it&#039;s hard to explain his exclusion otherwise. I do not wish anyone to discuss Mann&#039;s blocking on this thread either. I&#039;ve got an old thread on this topic &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=167&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More Mann Deletions &lt;/a&gt;and I request that people use this thread if they wish to pursue a  further discussion of Mann&#039;s blocking policy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, please don&#8217;t hijack this thread with a discussion of exclusion policies at your blog.</p>
<p>This topic was fully aired on Is It Karma?  I received complaints from some reputable people (lurkers) about that thread, so I closed the topic down. You made your points and were not denied access to this blog; but the topic had become a flame war. Again, please don&#8217;t hijack this or other threads with discussion of exclusion policies at your blog or other unrelated hobbyhorses; it becomes hard to differentiate from being spammed by poker sites.</p>
<p>The same goes for everyone. Please &#8211; no more criticisms of Lambert on this thread.</p>
<p>If there is a groundswell that anyone feels absolutely obliged to further discuss Lambert&#8217;s exclusion policies, please post a request on an open thread related to Lambert (<a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=275" rel="nofollow">Lambert on Cosine Latitudes</a>) and I will re-open Is It Karma as a sort of industrialized zone for behaviour between consenting adults in semi-private cubicles. In the meantime, I would prefer that there be no flashing in public threads, where there are some innocent civilians.</p>
<p>Tim, I don&#8217;t see why you would make assertions about something about which you have no knowledge.  I reported being blocked from Mann&#8217;s FTP site a long time ago.</p>
<p>Hans, I do not believe that it was the IT staff of the university for the following reason. Sometime after the FTP directory containing MBH98 proxy data suddenly materialized in November 2003 after publication our first EE article, I asked the university IT department when this directory first appeared in the publicly indexed part of Mann&#8217;s FTP site. (There are private areas of the FTP site, which are not publicly indexed and inaccessible without knowing the exact file name in advance. If a directory is moved from unindexed to public indexed, the data does not change. I noticed this with the transfers of the MANNETAL98 directory which was in an unindexed part of the sdr directory and later moced to the pub directory without a change.)  In repsonse to my inquiry, the IT staff of the university said that they had nothing to do with Mann&#8217;s FTP site and could not comment. It seemed odd as the site contained the reference *.virginia.edu, but that&#8217;s what they said.</p>
<p>Some of my neighbours are interested in my debates. I asked one of them to check and he was blocked as well.  I&#8217;m on a cable network, which (I think) works as a high-speed party line and it&#8217;s possible that we don&#8217;t have unique IP addresses from the point of view of the outside server. I don&#8217;t know this, but it&#8217;s hard to explain his exclusion otherwise. I do not wish anyone to discuss Mann&#8217;s blocking on this thread either. I&#8217;ve got an old thread on this topic <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=167" rel="nofollow">More Mann Deletions </a>and I request that people use this thread if they wish to pursue a  further discussion of Mann&#8217;s blocking policy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
