Reply to Science

As noted a couple of days ago, I received a response from Science in respect to my request for data from Osborn and Briffa [2006]. They asked that the response be confidential, but pointed me to a file archived at WDCP on Feb. 9, 2006, which proved to contain, not original data, but smoothed versions of the 14 series used in the article.

In addition, they sent me time series for 13 of 14 sites in Esper et al [2002], but they did not remedy the missing measurement data for either article. I should mention that WDCP ( contains measurement data sets for hundreds of tree ring sites – so it is not heavy lifting for these authors to archive tree ring measurements as used.

Anyway here’s my reply to Science:

Dear Dr Hanson,
Thank you for your prompt response to my letter in respect to Osborn and Briffa [2006], Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al [1989; 1997]. I appreciate your efforts in this and realize that you are frustrated at being criticized. However, if you reflect on the matter, I’m sure that you will agree that the problem stems entirely from the original authors failing to comply with Science’s data archiving policy.

It will come as no surprise to you that I do not believe that the additional data, useful as it is, comes anywhere near discharging Science’s obligations under its data policies for reasons that I will set out in detail below. I will discuss the shortfalls in connection with what I understand to be one of Science’s governing policies :

Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, before publication, large data sets … must be deposited in an approved database and an accession number provided for inclusion in the published paper.

Since the issue pertains to how Science discharges its policies, it is my position that you, rather than the original authors, are the appropriate arbiter of that. (Additionally, the authors have refused all requests in the past and I see no reason why their behavior would now differ.)

Status of Each Request
1. Digital versions of all 14 series as used in their final compilations;

I have inspected the archive at, to which you directed me. This consists of smoothed (and re-scaled) versions of the 14 series and is relevant to the request, but does not satisfy it. The authors specifically discuss correlations of these series to temperature, which requires consideration of the pre-smoothed series. Accordingly, I re-iterate my original request for digital versions of the 14 series.

2. For each of the tree ring sites analysed (both the 11 retained and Esper site not used, including Gotland, Jaemtland, Mackenzie Mts and Zhaschiviersk), an exact data citation to a public archive (e.g. WDCP) for the data set used; or, in the alternative, an archive of the data set at the Science website. In cases, where the publicly archive dataset for a site is related to but different from the version used by Osborn and Briffa, please archive the data set as used.

I was able to reasonably reconcile the smoothed series to original sources in public archives and accordingly have no issue with data provenance for the following Osborn and Briffa series: the Mann PC1 (#1); #5 Chesapeake; – #6 – Fisher’s Greenland O18 stack; #7 – Netherlands documentary; #14 – Yang’s China composite (although there are problems in the Thompson series used in this composite). For other users less familiar with nuances of series versions, I recommend that the SI be modified to provide accurate data citations for these 5 series.

The problems mostly pertain to tree ring data, which make up the other 9 series. In three cases, Osborn and Briffa provided data citations for sites in public archives (#4 – Quebec- cana169; #8 – Tirol — germ21; #11 – Mangazeja — russ067, russ068). In each of these 3 cases, the Esper version reconciles to the Osborn version (up to re-scaling). However, they do not reconcile to the original data sets.

a) the dataset germ21, cited by Osborn-Briffa for series #8- Tirol, has values from 1466 to 1837, while the archived version goes from 1324 to 1975. Obviously the data set has not been cited accurately or is incomplete.

b) the series cana169 goes from 1352 to 1989, while the Osborn version (#4 — Quebec) goes from 1352 to 1947. Again, it appears that the data set has not been cited accurately or is incomplete. Additionally, while I have been able to substantially replicate the features of other RCS chronologies, my efforts to reproduce the archived result from cana169 lead to a series with a significantly different shape.

c) one of the two cited data sets (russ067) does not contain measurements at WDCP. However, the versions “mangazla” and “mangazpc” in the Schweingruber section of WDCP appear to have the data for russ067 and russ068. However, these data sets only yield values from 1246 to 1969, while the archived Osborn version (#11 — Mangazeja) goes from 1246 to 1990. Some additional data must exist somewhere, but has not been archived at WDCP to date.

Two sites (#9 — Tornetrask; #13 — Mongolia) have WDCP measurement archives (swed019; mong003 respectively), but there are inconsistencies between the data as archived and the length of the Osborn and Briffa versions.

d) the WDCP archive for Tornetrask ends in 1990, which is inconsistent with the Osborn version which ends in 1993. This indicates that the data sets are not the same.

e) similarly, the WDCP archive for Sol Dav, Mongolia begins in 900, while the Osborn version begins in 800.

For the following 5 sites, no archive of the measurements exists at all — a direct breach of Science’s archiving policy:

f) Jasper/Icefields, Boreal, Upper Wright, Taimyr, Yamal,

Accordingly, I re-iterate my request that the measurement data consistent with the archived site chronologies be archived for each of the above items 2(a)- 2(f), as well as corresponding information for the following 4 sites considered in Osborn and Briffa:

g) Gotland, Jaemtland, Mackenzie; Zhaschiviersk

3. Digital versions of the specific gridcell temperature series used in each of the reported temperature correlations together with version date.

As noted in my previous request, D’Arrigo et al [2006] have reported directly opposite findings in respect to the correlation between their RCS chronology and gridcell temperature for: Jaemtland and the two foxtail series. I have specifically been unable to verify their claim in respect to bristlecones. Accordingly, I re-iterate the request for the digital versions of the temperature data used in these calculations. (In connection with a similar request, Nature required Mann et al. to archive the exact temperature data used in MBH98.)

4. Exact data citations to a public archive for all datasets used, or, if such do not exist, an archive of the data set at the Science website.

While most Osborn versions match Esper versions up to re-scaling, they differ in three cases, and a separate Esper version is required in two of them:

a) the Esper version for the Jasper data is different than the Osborn and Briffa version (as noted in Osborn and Briffa) and both data sets need to be made available;

b) similarly, there are differences between the version of the Tornetrask series archived by Esper and the one archived by Osborn, again requiring examination of both data sets;

c) the Polar Urals version of Esper differs from the Yamal version of Briffa. It is possible that the Esper version used a combination of data sets russ021 and russ176 (if so, would you please confirm this.)

5. A clear and operational definition distinguishing “linear” and “nonlinear” trees, preferably with source code showing any differences in methodology.

While the provision of site chronologies for 13 Esper sites is appreciated, one site (Mongolia) was unaccountably omitted. The corresponding information is requested.

While the provision of the site chronologies was interesting and appreciated, according to my reading of Esper et al [2002], these site chronologies were not used in the calculations in the article, which distinguished between “linear” and “nonlinear”. No operational definition is provided. combined with the unavailability of the bulk of the data, the calculations of “linear” and “nonlinear” chronologies cannot be replicated even from the recent information regarding Esper et al [2002] and this remains unresolved.

6. Thompson provides a complete archive of both Dunde and Guliya ice cores, including both isotope and chemical data.

While I appreciate that Thompson has provided sample information on (only) 2 Kilimanjaro cores, he did not provide the requested accompanying chemical information necessary for their interpretation. The Kilimanjaro data is obviously of little help with the Dunde and Guliya data.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program required archiving of data commencing in 1991 and the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology has been in existence since then and has been online since 1994. Accordingly there was an adequate facility for the archiving of the Guliya core when it was published in 1997.

I realize that the Dunde core was published in 1989, at a time when your present archiving policies were not in effect. However, Thompson has published versions of this series in other journals which are inconsistent with the version published in Science. I cannot imagine that you are content with such a situation. Even if you did not have policies at the time, I am sure that you can give a very firm request to Thompson and I find it difficult to believe that Thompson would refuse a direct request from Science to provide this data. If he has refused a direct request, then that too is relevant information, upon which I would appreciate confirmation.

Again, I apologize for putting you in the middle of this. However, some of this has been going on far too long with minimal results, leaving no alternative. I assure you that I will be equally public in commending you if and when you resolve matters. In my opinion, you should simply do the following:

(1) send a copy of your data archiving policy to each of the authors: Osborn-Briffa; Esper et al. and Thompson;
(2) tell Osborn-Briffa and Esper et al. that you expect them to comply with the policy which was in effect at the time of publication or else you will retract the article.
(3) tell Thompson that, if he wants to publish at Science in the future, he should immediately clean up his archive for the earlier articles.

Obviously there has been some inadequate housekeeping in the past. I can understand this and my concern is not with the past. My concern is with the present. You have an opportunity to remedy the situation now and no one will criticize Science for ensuring that paleoclimate authors meet Science’s data archiving policies. On the other hand, you will be justly criticized both by me and others if you don’t do so.

Stephen McIntyre


  1. per
    Posted Feb 23, 2006 at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Imaginary conversation:
    “Dear Mr Hansen
    that’s right, just speak into this microphone here.
    Now tell me again, why is it that you are behaving differently from your stated policy ? Why are you so upset that this has been pointed out ? Have you thought how this reflects on the integrity of your journal ?
    And can you remember HWANG ?”

    over to you, Professor North !


  2. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 23, 2006 at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve – excellent auditing discipline. On behalf of all who believe in the truth – THANKS!

  3. jae
    Posted Feb 23, 2006 at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve: Amazing. Not only are some of these Team members cherry-picking, but they are apparently also truncating series to suit their preconceived “theories.” I’ll bet those truncated series show a decline in growth in the portions truncated (as you demonstrated in your posts on the Post-1980 Proxies, growth sometimes decreases with increasing temperature). I still cannot see any hope in using tree ring data as a proxy for temperature.

  4. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Feb 23, 2006 at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Great letter Steve.
    Now nobody can say they are not aware of details or requirements.
    It might cause Science a problem in submissions, but that is how the ball bounces.

  5. Pat Frank
    Posted Feb 23, 2006 at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I add my congratulations on a terrific auditing job, Steve. Hanson is facing serious music with your letter, and the integrity of Science (mag) is on the line. It’s funny but as I read your letter asking specifically for this or that data set, I was having reminiscences of the US Congress asking the Nixon administration for this or that specific tape of White House conversations, during the Watergate invesigation. I expect you’re on the trail of a different but analagous cover-up, the outlines of which will emerge when the specific data are compared with the published claims. These folks don’t want anyone to actually know what they’ve done with the data to get their results. They may be well-meaning, but one suspects they are deeply reluctant to being forced to publicly justify their methods.

    What will soon become important is the response of the scientific community, and the media, when the import of what I suspect you’re discovering becomes clear to all. Will they clean up their acts, or will they instead do “damage control”? If the latter, then the corruption is endemic and we’re all in even more trouble.

    In any case, a question: How the bloody-H are you able to keep such a precise record of all the data and players? Have you charted it all out for yourself? The reason I ask is that I’d like to be able to do that myself, but don’t have a good method of record-keeping of other’s work.

    You deserve a medal, Steve. Seriously.

  6. Ken Robinson
    Posted Feb 23, 2006 at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Steve;

    Allow me to add my appreciation for your efforts, and my vast admiration for the way you’ve conducted yourself. Pat’s absolutely right; you deserve a medal.

    Tell you what; if you ever start up a mining company and you’re looking for investors, I’m in. After I verify the numbers in the prospectus of course… ;-)

    Very best regards;

  7. Posted Feb 23, 2006 at 1:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Your request is thorough, tenacious, wholly merited and readily understood. Please keep pushing. You have my sincere appreciation. I continue to follow all this carefully.

  8. Roger Bell
    Posted Feb 23, 2006 at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve been reading Steve’s perfectly justified complaints to Science on this issue for quite some time now and I wonder if a slightly different approach is needed. Couldn’t Science ask its referees to check that the data used in the paper have been appropriately archived at a location specified by Science?
    After all, the referee of a paper is responsible for judging its science. This should include examining the data. At the start of the current discussion on this issue, Steve complains that some data are present but not in the form that he wanted. An alert referee could well notice this point.
    Roger Bell

  9. jae
    Posted Feb 24, 2006 at 6:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Science is in the center of another debate about proper archiving of data and peer review procedures. An Oregon State University graduate student recently had a paper on the evils of logging dead trees from a large forest fire accepted by Science (before even bouncing it off his professors or the BLM–who sponsored the study). Science again did not follow its published policies, and the issue has attracted a great deal of attention by Senator Ron Weyden (D Oregon), who is having hearings on the matter in Washington and Oregon. It seems that the author does not have all the relevant data, because several students were involved in obtaining it and the records are incomplete…) It appears that Science has now become a place for environmentalists to publish whatever they wish. Maybe some of the Hockey Team don’t have all the data, either…

  10. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 24, 2006 at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    RE: #9. I had this wonderful “a-ha” moment yesterday while in a debate with Steve Bloom and some other person who goes by Anders, over at Warwick Hughes yesterday. As follows: Luddites have long despised the worlds of science and engineering. Their more recent cousins, Gaia worshippers, do as well. Therefore, they changed their strategy sometime during the late 1970s. They infiltrated the worlds of science and engineering in order to undermine them from within. Go and read Real Climate with a mind that it has a Luddite / Gaia worshipper agenda. You’ll see how even people with advanced degrees in hard sciences will convolute things using the sorts of circular reasoning and outright repeating often enough of lies that used to be the sole province of those engaged at the revolutionary extremes of the social world. How can someone deny the facts that things like solar forcing, geophysical / astrophysical perturbations, heat flow via highly vertically developed convective cloud forms (which are nature’s “CPU heatsinks”) and the vast effects of the general increase since the 1800s in arthropogenic thermal dissipation and albedo changes (e.g. millions of “UHIs” of all sizes ranging from great cities to mountain cabins)? And yet, they do try to deny them.All I want to see is an honest attempt to agnostically account for all the factors and to use the accounting to name the caveats that are needed when using GCMs. The reluctance to do that tells me that I am onto something.

  11. Dano
    Posted Feb 24, 2006 at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Reply


    The narrow-scope findings are not new (summary here, context here). This is well-known. There is nothing new, silviculturally, in this study. [Linky won’t take HTML in WordPress for some reason:

    Nothing you have said, written, implied, averred or alleged (yet provided no detail for your assertion) negates the fact that postfire logging has likely net negative impacts overall. The USFS, apparently, doesn’t care that it is losing taxpayer money on this (and other) logging contracts. [Linky won’t take HTML in WordPress for some reason:



  12. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 24, 2006 at 7:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dano, I have two questions for you and I would like your honest answers.
    1. Do you believe in Gaia?
    2. Do you believe that “old school” science and engineering (pre 1970, pre the first Earth Day) was somehow less “enlightened” about the environment than the “new school” science of today?

    Answer me these things.

  13. Dano
    Posted Feb 24, 2006 at 8:23 PM | Permalink | Reply


    If I may, if part of your premise depends upon your ability to identify climate scientists, your argument needs work.

    Steve Bloom is an informed amateur (caveat: I don’t know what he or Ender do for a living), despite your wish for him to be a professional. Last I looked, your “CB” question on RC was ignored because Lindzen’s Iris Effect isn’t holding up to peer review so no one is going to waste their time on the already obvious bait [to atomistically quibble about something].

    Nobody denies the effects of those things you said on WH blog (the sun and CRF and things), even tho you wish it is so. They are denying your wish of their primacy over anthropic change driven by human-added CO2 to the atm – see, they deny it because the weight of empirical evidence says they should deny it. Just because you wish something to be so doesn’t make it so.

    In addition, your:

    At least a plurality of “climate scientists” are not much different from Luddites, anti-scientific religious extremists, or other sorts of folks who seem to want to go back to a time when Man, in a pre-rational, pre-scientific social state, worshipped rocks, sun gods, and the forces of Nature he did not yet have methodologies for understanding.

    is, simply, a ridiculous false equivalency and poor rhetoric to boot, fraught with basic error (pssst: scientists use methodologies for understanding) and based on the false premise (ooh wait, you used “seem”) that, because maybe 5 folks at one time said we should use an energy equivalent of some vague time in the past, that all people who don’t share your ideology think that way.

    Try taking a basic EnvPol class at your community college to see what people actually think about this topic. Or, cheaper, go to ‘Amazon’ and read the summaries of books in the topics of environmental policy, political ecology, cultural ecology, adaptive management, ecological management, environmental planning, natural resource use, natural resource planning, land use planning, cultural preservation, sustainability planning, sustainable forestry, resource management, etc. Google Scholar can help you in this regard, too, for the prep. for an enjoyable trip to the library to actually check up on the veracity of your assertion.

    Nonetheless I shall state, in their stead (not speaking for them, they may correct me), that the folk you wish to marginalize likely think your parrotted assertion utterly, tediously, tendentiously familiar and, having seen it repeated so often, not worth replying to. Or they could be embarrassed for you. Either way.

    Just more spam, so to speak.



  14. Dano
    Posted Feb 24, 2006 at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Reply


    1. No.
    2. I’m not aware of your two schools.



  15. jae
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dano: My link had to do with Science (journal) not following their own written procedures. Arguments about logging are not a part of this blog. However, if you like I will argue with you at length on that subject at another site. Your remarks indicate you truely are a Gaia worshiper (a religion, you know). Read Lomborg’s book, if you haven’t already. Like Crighton says: “Environmentalism is the religion of choice for urban aethists.” You really fit here, IMHO.

  16. jae
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, BTW, Dano, when are you going to counter some of Steve’s findings regarding data manipulation?

  17. Dano
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    15, 16: You’re projecting with the Gaia thing. Give it a rest.

    The larger implication of your comment was that the findings are suspect because the paper didn’t archive data properly, which is incorrect – that is what I addressed. If you don’t like the provided data, this is easily overcome: if you want to scrutinize the data, ring up the author. Violàƒ➡ Audit away! And thank you for implying that I am familiar enough with Mann’s procedures to comment on data manipulation (if that’s what you mean). That’s quite a compliment. But, as I haven’t worked with the man, I can’t speak to the issue. I’ll just read everyone’s results in the place where the currency is exchanged, the journals.



  18. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I tried Dano:

    this was the answer:

    Sorry I can not be more helpful on these old data sets.

  19. Dano
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 6:41 PM | Permalink | Reply


    Maybe if you were, oh, a climate scientist Hans you’d get more attention.

    See, scientist’s precious time is often wasted by some wanker or guy with kooky ideas, so they learn to be, like, careful of who they give their time to an’ stuff (psssst: which is why someone got to correspond with a grad student a while back).

    Now, some may ignore this fact and go forth to some blog and express their umbrage about how scientists have something to hide. It’s a conspiracy!!!! Green mafia. Handouts. Gaia worshippers. Luddites. Cabals everywhere. A-ha!

    Or something.

    I know you don’t stoop to such crankiness, however.



    P.S. From here, it doesn’t look like a good spring for bulbs so far…

  20. jae
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Gaia boy Dano: You are not adding anything here. Did anyone ever tell you that you had a nasty disposition?

  21. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #19
    Your argument might have some merit if (a) it actually took a significant amount of time to point a correspondent to a website containing all the archived info for a paper and (b) if there weren’t so many counterexamples (e.g. imagine if the Human Genome Project had restricted access to its sequence and methods info to “qualified geneticists” only, or worse yet, only to those approved by the project PIs).
    Since tools like email autoresponders reduce a researcher’s time outlay for (a) to literally zero, there’s not even any need to get into the issue of a scientist’s responsibility to share the data supporting his/her published results.

  22. Dano
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Did anyone ever tell you that you had a nasty disposition?

    I try to make the character mostly irreverant and flippant, really.

    However, name-calling by using marginalization phraseologies might be more likely to be judged ‘nasty’ than a Dano comment tactic. But I can understand how some don’t like the context and project their wishes to make it seem as being nasty.

    And, you may have missed it, but I added that your implication in 9 was incorrect. That’s certainly an addition.

    Oh, BTW, I can’t find anything about ‘hearings’ by Wyden on the AAAS journal not following its published policies. Is this announcement behind a sub somewhere? [pointing out this omission might be considered an addition, too, as someone else may wish to follow-up. Jus' sayin']



  23. Dano
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 8:13 PM | Permalink | Reply


    Your comment is more appropriate for addressing the lack of a data standard. Field notes are often still taken on paper. Operating systems differ, etc.

    That is: your argument proceeds from the assumption that all data are stored equally and are equally retrieveable. That is not the case.

    And still unaddressed is the fact that the kooky-idea guy is going to call back and ask about this and that and etc. and there goes an hour. But in our little constructed narrative here, I don’t know how b) addresses the context on this site. That project architecture doesn’t apply here. Anyway,

    It is my experience that it is very hard to get an academic’s time. My grad advisor was out a minimum of two weeks and I got on her schedule at the beginning of every quarter or I had to wait (I suspect she’s worse than that now). She’s in high demand, at roughly the same position in her field as who-we-mean-here, and everyone wants a piece of her time. Folks she doesn’t know don’t get a call back. I’m sure it’s the same with who-we-mean-here.



  24. jae
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dano gaia guy: I’m so sorry you are being ignored by your advisor, but I have a strong intuitive feeling why you are being ignored. You are simply a basket case.

  25. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 9:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Children, please. Flame at

  26. Armand MacMurray
    Posted Feb 25, 2006 at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re #23:
    You say:

    That is: your argument proceeds from the assumption that all data are stored equally and are equally retrieveable. That is not the case.

    No, my argument proceeds from the assumption that (a) data *used in preparing a published paper by any reputable scientist* is easily retrievable. Since it was used in preparing the paper, it must be accessable to the author(s). If it’s already in computer form, all it takes is to copy it to an archive directory. If it’s instead on paper, as you suggest, excellent scanners cost less than $100 these days, and if the graduate students or administrative staff won’t scan it, places like Kinko’s are very reasonable and do an excellent job. Thus, there is no significant time or money cost to the “busy scientist.” There are no significant computer/operating systems issues: just copy the files to a directory accessable from the internet. As I noted above, everyone now has access to email autoresponders and other technology that eliminates the need for the “busy scientist” to spend time directing people to the data archive: simply set up the autoresponder to respond with pointers to the location(s) of the data directories.
    No talking with anyone is needed. No human email responses to anyone are needed. No interaction with any proverbial “kooky guys” is needed.
    In passing, the graduate advisors I’ve known have been open to discussing scientific issues with others without requiring appointments months in advance or getting bogged down by “kooky guys”, while also being in high demand in similarly prominent positions in their fields. My guess is that, as with much else, it varies from person to person and so it’s best to focus on what should be rather than to use one individual as a template.

  27. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 26, 2006 at 3:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re 19:

    Watch this space Dano, I have something amusing in the pipeline.

  28. Hans Erren
    Posted Feb 26, 2006 at 3:48 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Let’s consider this. Thompson drilled two cores from a shrinking glacier. The core are sitting in the fridge in Ohio. The only data so far available is an interpreted dataset.
    It is beyond me why Thompson didn’t put a graduate student on the ice to get the core description out in the public.
    Talk of priorities.

  29. jae
    Posted Feb 26, 2006 at 6:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    re 22: Dano, it’s Greg Walden, D Washington, not Ron Weyden. I got my senators mixed up. Sorry. But, Weyden is probably following this issue, also, since he’s spearheading efforts to allow more logging on burned forests.

  30. Dano
    Posted Feb 26, 2006 at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Re 26:

    Fair enough Armand.



  31. Dano
    Posted Feb 26, 2006 at 2:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    re 29:

    I’ve been following this hearing. It has nothing to do with Science’s written procedures; rather, it’s about the study findings and the provisions of the BLM grant that underwrote some of the research & what they allow you to do (and, likely, the BLM’s actions will come out too).

    The hearings will have a number of folks testifying on their research findings, and no one from Science is attending. I’m sure the Fire Ecologist testifying will remind the Rep. that this is far from the first finding to detail the injurious effects of postfire logging.



  32. jae
    Posted Feb 26, 2006 at 6:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dano: As I understand the problem, Science is in trouble for publishing an article that has relevance to current legislation–against their policy. They have agreed to “fix” the problem (I certainly don’t know how). Also, there have been criticisms about improper peer review procedures. I can’t point you to a reference, since I learned these things at one of the hearings you mention.

  33. jae
    Posted Feb 26, 2006 at 6:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    And Dano: I have a forestry degree and can debate the logging stuff all day. But this is not the forum.

  34. Dano
    Posted Feb 26, 2006 at 8:33 PM | Permalink | Reply


    I had heard something about two profs asking Science to delay publication so they can put in their 2¢, but can’t find an arty on conflicting with current legislation. It’s quite a dust-up, with BLM pulling funding then restoring it the next day. Inslee wants Interior to investigate whether the Administration tried to Hansenize the research.


    As do I (specialty, not industrial logging). With classes in Fire Ecology.



Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,882 other followers

%d bloggers like this: