Comments on: Briffa 2000 and Yamal

By: Was the Northeast Passage first navigated in 1660? | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:48:04 +0000

[...] was also aware that Steve McIntyre had already analyzed this paper, and in this post I found important information on how to contextualize Briffa’s work, as well as his original [...]

By: Was the Northeast Passage first navigated in 1660? | Watts Up With That?

Was the Northeast Passage first navigated in 1660? | Watts Up With That? — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:04:15 +0000

[...] was also aware that Steve McIntyre had already analyzed this paper, and in this post I found important information on how to contextualize Briffa’s work, as well as his original [...]

By: Re-Visiting the "Yamal Substitution" « Climate Audit

Re-Visiting the "Yamal Substitution" « Climate Audit — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:35:14 +0000

[...] reconstructions that supposedly “support” the Hockey Stick. For example, in June 2006, I showed the direct impact of a simple sensitivity study using Polar Urals versus Yamal – an issue [...]

By: Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up? Re-Mix. « Climate Audit

Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up? Re-Mix. « Climate Audit — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:27:02 +0000

[...] Briffa 2000 and Yamal [...]

By: bender

bender — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:57:50 +0000

Steve M,
When I see this kind of blatant cherry-picking, it makes me ill. This is highly reminsecent of the strip-bark vs. full-bark bcps. Faced with a choice, alarmists always takes the chronology that has the steeper 20th c. slope.

By: Steve Sadlov

Steve Sadlov — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 16:32:07 +0000

RE: “the statistics of climatology” – right up there with “The Harvard Dept of Symbology,” eh? Robert Langdon I presume?

By: Paul Penrose

Paul Penrose — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 19:41:38 +0000

Mr. Sully,
You are obviously and admittedly very uninformed on the subjects involved, and so you’ll forgive me if I don’t put much stock in your opinions.

By: Bob K

Bob K — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 05:49:05 +0000

For those that aren’t familiar with manbearpig. Here’s wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manbearpig

By: McCall

McCall — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 04:58:53 +0000

Keep reading Mr. Sully. ALL of your points (in 9) have been addressed and rebutted before, when offered up by previous graduates(?) of RC.org. Welcome to the light, though it may take some time for your eyes to get used to it. Then again

Re: former Vice President Gore — it was reported that he also triumphantly regurgitates the unnanimity of the AGW consensus as proffered by Dr. Oreskes in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686. I can’t wait for the Director’s Cut DVD where he explains the existence and impending extinction of our species by ManBearPig.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 04:58:13 +0000

My understanding is:

* Mann reported that RE and R2 verification statistics were good, in his paper(s), but did not report the actual numbers.
* Steve calculates R2 of his emulation of MBH’s work and finds it’s insignificant.
* When asked about the numbers, Mann later said “Of course I did not calculate the R2 value, that would have been silly” (or something to that effect).
* Steve gets a hold of his source code and sees he DID calculate them, and they WERE insignificant, in contradcition to his claims.