Comments on: Letter to Climatic Change http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/ by Steve McIntyre Sat, 25 May 2013 01:33:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That? http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-218041 Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:37:58 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-218041 [...] “shows” that the current warming is “unprecedented in human history.” This hack is akin to check kiting or akin to planting older fossils with younger fossils as occurred in the Piltdown Man [...]

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47434 Sun, 11 Jun 2006 01:15:00 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47434 No disagreement with the above, Steve. It’s just that for a casual reader, they may not understand “most recent” to mean in terms of the debate flow rather than in terms of time of publication.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47433 Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:40:19 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47433 #77. I thought “peer-reviewed” article were supposed to consider relevant up-to-date literature. How can they simply ignore the discussion in our Reply to Huybers? It was “peer-reviewed” just as much as Huyber’s Comment and it fully considers all aspects of Huybers’ Comment but the reverse is not true.

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47432 Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:23:50 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47432 This is a very minor point: calling MM2005c, ‘the most recent peer-reviewed RE paper’ is maybe not the most apt description, since technically it was published simultaneously with the Huybers comment. I know what Steve means in terms of it being the latest in the flow of commentary, since thought-wise it comes after Huybers. Maybe there is a more apt way to express this.

]]> By: Peter Hearnden http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47431 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:39:00 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47431 Re #63, tried to reply, got karmared (twice, and umpteen times today…) gave up.

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47430 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:11:51 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47430 It’s tendentious if I don’t beleive it to be true. And, no.

]]> By: Peter Hearnden http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47429 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:51:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47429 Re #71, surely it tendentious to suggest ‘Mannites’ aren’t interested in the truth? Do you think I’m interested in the truth, or do you just dismiss those who disagree?

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47428 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:36:06 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47428 Steve B., if the Mannites cared about truth instead of tendentious argument, then they wouldn’t care about “giving Steve M. credibility”. Go read the Feynman lecture on cargo cult science.

]]> By: Peter Hearnden http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47427 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:09:07 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47427 Make that three deleted posts…

]]> By: Peter Hearnden http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/28/letter-to-climatic-change/#comment-47426 Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:53:01 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=607#comment-47426 Re #63, Bruce, it’s more that, after reading post #42 and #44 I couldn’t, genuinely, bring myself (so far…) to participate in such a thread. I’m sick of such posts. But, re #65…

Lets see. Firstly, you didn’t ask me… Also Steve Bloom, Dano, (#66, #70) make a good points about wanting to hear both sides before pronouncing guilt. So would I.

]]>