Comments on: Esper et al [2002]

By: The Global Warming Bollocks | JustGoFaster

The Global Warming Bollocks | JustGoFaster — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:36:15 +0000

[...] Esper et al 2005 compared previous studies and the diagram below shows their findings. [...]

By: TCO

TCO — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:53:19 +0000

I’ve written for the literature and had citations that were in press or even “submitted” (good to be clear and honest about the difference, if it’s still in review, it may not get accepted and “in press” is not legit.) I think I’ve even seen or done citations that were not written yet (you can also cite stuff as “unpublished”) but going to be written and submitted to a journal. But in those cases it was always for tangential matters, interesting to a reader…but not part of the key methods.

In any case, I’ve never seen (or done) someone give copies of unpublished citations. That stuff has tended to be on trust, in my experience. Of course, it is not a good practice…for the obvious reason that plans change and things don’t get published. But anyone who’s looked at papers has had the frustrating experience of mistaken citations anyway even for the publisehd lit (not justifying it…prefer the opposite…just my experience).

By: Armand MacMurray

Armand MacMurray — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:11:46 +0000

I would expect that the original submission to Science would have included copies of any “in press” citations for the reviewers’ use. Perhaps Science still has such; in any case, in order to observe scientific niceties, why not try writing Esper first with the request for methodology info? Continuing with such requests, even if they end up being only pro forma, can only help your image and reputation. Who knows — one of the requests might actually work, too!

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:43:09 +0000

I’m pretty good about writing these sorts of letters. I seldom get anywhere, but, I’ve learned long ago, that if you don’t ask, they can say that you didn’t ask.

By: TCO

TCO — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:42:16 +0000

Yes, you should send a respectful request for clarification/correction (even if it doesn’t give you satisifaction…these things add up).

By: TCO

TCO — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:39:32 +0000

Forward citations are tricky (because you may not get accepted, because you may abondon the paper, etc.) thing. I’ve done them myself, mostly for purpose of plugging myself. If you do divide things into LPUs, you may have some times where you want to do so, to point out a related interesting matter and to plug yo bad self. However, a forward citation OF METHODS or of a main support for an argument. That is poor practice. Should be caught by the reviewer.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:26:57 +0000

The distinction between "linear" and "nonlinear" growth is a novel one – I don’t know what it means operationally. I’ve looked at hundreds of plots of tree cores and I find it hard to even speculate on what it means. It obviously has to do with the amount of juvenile pulse, but there are a lot of cores with no juvenile pulse. Waking up on this, not only does the supposed citation not explain the linear/nonlinear distinction, but it calculates RCS for Gotland without applying this distinction. Rather than speculating on this, I think that I’ll write another letter to Science pointing out that the forward citation did not do what it was supposed to do and requesting a detailed SI explaining what they actually did. I’m not very optimistic – this is hard core Hockey Team and a key popularizer, but you never know until you ask.

By: Paul Gosling

Paul Gosling — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:59:24 +0000

Steve
I am probably showing my lack of competence in statistics here (again). But if some trees show linear growth and some not,is it not reasonable to assume there are two ‘populations’, therefore making sense to analyse them seperately?

By: John A

John A — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:25:52 +0000

Or, just as importantly, Mann’s “refutation” must have been very weak indeed.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:50:57 +0000

Jones and Mann [2004] in Reviews of Geophysics slagged MM03, citing MBH, submitted to Climatic Change – another forward citation. MBH, submitted, was then rejected by Climatic Change – whose editor is Stephen Schneider, no friend of our critique – so you can assume that our rebuttal to MBH’s submission was very strong indeed.