Materials Complaint on Moberg: Update

A couple of months ago, after getting nowhere with Moberg on same peculiarities in some data sets (see right category Moberg et al ), I filed a Materials Complaint to Nature discussed here. There have been some developments on this.

Readers may recall that, on a previous occasion, in connection with MBH98, Ross and I filed a Materials Complaint with Nature and, as a result, Nature required the authors to issue a Corrigendum.


19 Comments

  1. IL
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 12:56 AM | Permalink

    What are the developments?

  2. fFreddy
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 5:15 AM | Permalink

    This is a bit of a tease. Are you saying Moberg is going to have to do a Corrigendum ?

  3. TCO
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 6:23 AM | Permalink

    What have relations with Moberg been like? Mannian? worse? better?

  4. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 7:50 AM | Permalink

    I asked him for some stuff; he refused; I complained to Nature. Is that Mannian? I don’t know how Moberg feels about the process. There’s nothing personal as far as I’m concerned.

  5. John A
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 8:21 AM | Permalink

    Is this an unfinished post or do we get 20 questions?

  6. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    It is intentionally obscure. If I wanted to say what I mean, I would have. I’m offline for 4 days starting in 3 hours so everyone will be on their own.

  7. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    The “Readers may recall…” sounds pretty suggestive. Perhaps we should be on the lookout for another Corrigendum?

  8. JerryB
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 1:24 PM | Permalink

    Have a good trip, and don’t forget to come back.

  9. TCO
    Posted Nov 8, 2005 at 10:21 PM | Permalink

    mo, mo, mo! I want mo!

  10. mark
    Posted Nov 9, 2005 at 5:34 PM | Permalink

    that’s just not right… just not right.

    mark

  11. John Hunter
    Posted Nov 10, 2005 at 1:23 AM | Permalink

    Steve (#6):

    > It is intentionally obscure. If I wanted to say what I mean, I would have. I’m offline
    > for 4 days starting in 3 hours so everyone will be on their own.

    This seems a funny way to behave. If the intention was to deliberately mislead, then I could understand. But — silly me — I thought this site was meant to educate …..

  12. Posted Nov 10, 2005 at 7:09 AM | Permalink

    If there were a global contest to look for demonstrable problems with other climate papers, you would probably win.

  13. TCO
    Posted Nov 10, 2005 at 7:28 AM | Permalink

    John, It’s the night before Chris (Fitz) mas.

  14. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 10, 2005 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    Re: #11

    The thing is, John, that Steve doesn’t know if he’s allowed to post the message he got from Nature or not. Therefore he doesn’t want to try pretend that something has happened and mislead people, but he did, for whatever reason, want to indicate that something has happened. I suppose this could be another rebuff from the Climate powers-that-be or it could be something positive from his POV.

    Surely you wouldn’t want Steve to leak information, now would you?

  15. TCO
    Posted Nov 10, 2005 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    John wants to beat him up for lack of transparency if he doesn’t share stuff or to beat him up for not following community norms if he reveals something that has not yet published.

    And…he has a bit of right on his side in that Steve’s comment defines the term “half-pregnant”.

    I still think we are doing better than the RC guys with their censorship (on one aspect) and then with citing/press-releasing unpublished and then rejected papers (on the other side).

  16. Spence_UK
    Posted Nov 10, 2005 at 12:56 PM | Permalink

    I reckon Steve left us a bit of a cliff hanger because he was planning to go away for a few days. He was probably worried that people like John Hunter would get bored and go away, so dangled a little carrot here for them to encourage them to stay.
    :)

  17. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Nov 10, 2005 at 11:14 PM | Permalink

    Sustainable, TCO?

    Isn’t that one of the envirowacko’s code words meaning if you’re poor we’re gong to make you stay poor so we can sustain the wealth we’ve become accustomed to here in the first world?

  18. Ian Castles
    Posted Dec 17, 2005 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    Steve, Do you have any developments to report on the Materials Complaint against Nature that you lodged on 9 September?

  19. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 17, 2005 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=440, although nothing’s been done so far.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,332 other followers

%d bloggers like this: