Comments on: More O.B. Confidential

By: Tom Nelson…one day in “The End of Climate Change” | pindanpost

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:32:24 +0000

[...] the last item. Why don’t you just give these people the raw [...]

By: Climategate 2.0: Wigley to Briffa: ‘Are you hiding something?’ | JunkScience.com

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:12:44 +0000

[...] the last item. Why don’t you just give these people the raw [...]

By: Jack Lacton

Jack Lacton — Thu, 11 May 2006 09:30:06 +0000

I notice that none of the noisy crowd from the ironically named Realclimate (& Friends) rarely make comment on the threads about non-disclosure of data.

They’re happy to get all hot and emotional and argue that the science is right (and using the industry funding inanity to discredit people on the way through) while having NEVER seen any of those data that provide the proof of their position.

“I’m right.”
“Show me the data.”
“No.”
“No?”
“No.”
“Have you seen it yourself?”
“I don’t need to. I’m right.”
“Ooooooookay then…”

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Thu, 11 May 2006 03:34:22 +0000

#11. There are a number of errors in Osborn and Briffa 2006 which would be frustrating to anyone trying to replicate them.

In data that I’ve looked at so far, there are a number of incorrectly cited data sets. The position of Osborn and Briffa, seemingly endorsed so far by Science, is that the incorrect identifications don’t “matter” to the final answer and therefore no Corrigendum is required.

A site “chronology” is type of standardized average taken from measurement data, which is highly sensitive to the form of standardization. Four chronologies used in the study were calculated in Briffa 2000. The underlying data for Briffa 2000 was never archived, even those these series are used in many studies (not just Osborn and Briffa 2000).

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Thu, 11 May 2006 01:46:24 +0000

#11, Per, if Science has a strong vested interest in not finding errors in its pages, then the editorial staff should be replaced in its entirety. Science ought to have a strong vested interest in finding every single error in its pages, publicly letting everyone know about them, and then expunging or retracting them. Perhaps the most important thing any scientist should know (apart from integrity in data) is that science is not about image.

By: per

per — Thu, 11 May 2006 00:05:14 +0000

I am not sure I have this right.
O&B described their methods, and gave a citation. However, this citation is wrong, and another paper (B,2000) is the actual source of the data. Is the original data from B(2000) archived ?

I can see that Science has a strong vested interest in not finding too many errors in the work it publishes in its pages. But if it is arguing that all is well when the original data reference was wrong, and the real reference doesn’t have the information required, it seems to me that a good dose of daylight on this dusty process is required !
yours
per

By: Dave Dardinger

Dave Dardinger — Wed, 10 May 2006 16:17:26 +0000

re#7

Actually I caught myself typing CaC02, backspaced to change it to 3 and then typed 2 again and failed to notice. Bad finger training! I also catch myself typing Stever instead of Steve a lot, but I think I’ve always caught that.

By: John A

John A — Wed, 10 May 2006 16:02:29 +0000

Re #8

That’s not an excuse. It’s just sad.

Why are we then attaching so much importance to their work if they behave like that?

By: jae

jae — Wed, 10 May 2006 15:41:14 +0000

I wonder if some of these guys will not release data, simply because they don’t know where it is. They have all these graduate students and technicians helping, and things probably get very confused. They probably can’t even reproduce their OWN “reconstructions.”

By: John A

John A — Wed, 10 May 2006 15:08:14 +0000

Re: #5

Dave, I think you’ll find that carbonate shells are

Yes. I’m being pedantic.