It often feels like shoveling out a swamp in dealing with the misrepresentations of our stuff. Someone over at Tim Lambert has said that I “originated incorrect information” about Mann’s CENSORED directory:
So my original point stands that McIntyre originated incorrect information such as the idea that the data in the ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400-CENSORED directory only has bristlecone pine proxies removed when it actually has the entire North American tree ring data set and Queen Anne data set removed.
Here are the facts.
The uncensored directory ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400 (“url/BACKTO_1400″) contains 70 North American tree ring sites. The ITRDB codes for 70 sites are listed in the file url/BACKTO_1400/noamer-itrdb-ad1400.txt sites. The url/BACKTO_1400-CENSORED directory does not contain a file with a listing of sites, but the file of eigenvalues BACKTO_1400-CENSORED/eigen.out shows that the PC calculations in this directory were done with 50 series. What are the 20 censored series?
If one compares the two files url/noamer.inf , which has 212 series, and url/noamer-censored.inf, which has 192 series, one can obtain the codes for 20 excluded series. All 20 excluded series are present in the 70 sites in the uncensored BACKTO_1400 network.
What are the 20 censored series? 19 of the 20 are were collected by Donald Graybill and 1 by Connie Woodhouse. Graybill was specifically trying to identify CO2 fertilization in this data set, which was reported on in Graybill and Idso . Of the 20 censored series, the majority are listed in Graybill and Idso . 16 of 20 are bristlecone/foxtail series; 4 are high-altitude strip-bark limber pine. I collectively refer to these strip-bark sites as “bristlecones” (with appropriate definition in published material.) A listing of the censored files is here.
I don’t know why people make such categorical statements about things where they lack knowledge.