Comments on: Moberg Corrigendum

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:48:08 +0000

Is EPICA (interesting handle, that….) perhaps *in* that photo, and hence, the raw nerve here?….. Just a thought.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:49:07 +0000

epica: Good grief, don’t you understand confict of interest? If you were in Steve’s shoes, would you not want to try to get a fair and objective hearing?

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:17:51 +0000

Georg, listen to yourself. The National Academy of Sciences has stated policies related to bias, objectivity and conflict of interest. In my opinion, it is a legitimate and serious question whether Ammann’s supervisor and recent Bradley coauthor, Otto-Bliesen, complies with those policies. It is, of course, possible that, despite being in non-compliance with NAS policies of bias, objectivity and conflict of interest, that Otto-Bliesen could still come to an objective judgment concerning Ammann and Bradley, but NAS’ policies state that they do not want to take such risks (and Otto-Bliesen’s qualifications are not so unique that other suitable candidates could not be identified.)

Here are some excerpts from their policy statement:

Conflict of interest requirements are objective and prophylactic. They are not an assessment of one’s actual behavior or character, one’s ability to act objectively despite the conflicting interest, or one’s relative insensitivity to particular dollar amounts of specific assets because of one’s personal wealth. Conflict of interest requirements are objective standards designed to eliminate certain specific, potentially compromising situations from arising, and thereby to protect the individual, the other members of the committee, the institution, and the public interest. The individual, the committee, and the institution should not be placed in a situation where others could reasonably question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, the work of the committee simply because of the existence of such conflicting interests…

However, an individual should not serve as a member of a committee with respect to an activity in which a critical review and evaluation of the individual’s own work, or that of his or her immediate employer, is the central purpose of the activity, because that would constitute a conflict of interest, although such an individual may provide relevant information to the program activity.

By: Bob K

Bob K — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:10:42 +0000

Hmmm. The link didn’t get posted. I’ll try again.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion

By: Bob K

Bob K — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:08:47 +0000

Just thought I'd post a well written article summing up AGW doctrine, that some might be interested in reading. References this site.

By: Brooks Hurd

Brooks Hurd — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:00:01 +0000

re: 11 Epica
“….beyound….climate rechearch bashing….”
Bashing research is not the issue. Most of Steve’s efforts have been to encourage scientific journals to hold climatge research to the same standards by which they judge other sciences.

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:50:59 +0000

Re #16, good advice! Not much support for the troll here – http://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000978.html

By: JerryB

JerryB — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 11:19:17 +0000

Perhaps this might be a suitable point to repeat the advice: don’t feed the trolls.

By: John A

John A — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:46:43 +0000

Re #14

epica: why is it so difficult to understand or are you going for Hearnden-like pseudo-pedantry?

The reason for the photograph is, in the context of controversial claims about Steve’s work by Caspar Ammann, which no doubt Steve will be making reference to in his submission to the NAS Panel, Ammann’s immediate superior is part of the panel.

Now is she meant to be critical of work done by Ammann that she has already approved and used as part of Ammann’s reviews?

That’s the content of the photograph. Potential conflict of interest.

Now please avail us all of some substantive arguments and quit whining about the normal functioning of weblogs on the Internet.

By: epica

epica — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:08:37 +0000

#12 Steve, might be I underestimated the depth of your iconographic analysis of the Amann picture you were publishing since 1000 words are not enough to replace it. There are different interpretations possible: 1) Mountains exist near Boulder 2) There is a dominance of unisex clothing in the West 3) people taken together on a foto are no longer able to come to an objective judgement concerning the science of the others on the foto (this would be a developpment of the shamanistic idea that the soul of a person goes over and is finally banned into the foto?) Which one is the one that couldnt be expressed with 1000 words? Otherwise I am agreeing with you what you call gossipy I call it as well and what you call speculations I call it as well. It’s just I wouldnt put it on a web side.