One such a book is:

Taken by Storm
by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick

Really a book worth reading.

I don’t know why you think the climate scientists don’t archive their data. I’ve never heard that nor can I believe it, as the IPCC process is a massive exercise in analysing each other’s data and models.

Bishop Hill replied:

You will of course know of Steve McIntyre’s greivances over access to climate science data. The Climate Audit blog is chock full of examples of refusals to release data.

Maxine Clark replied:

Yes, I have had dealings with Prof McIntrye, and I am afraid I do not share your view of his actions.

I wrote in to the blog inquiring about what actions. I was thinking back to 2004 mainly because of the VZ blog entry and didn’t recall her name in this context. Now I do. I don’t understand how she can say that she’s “never heard that climate scientists don’t archive their data”. This was discussed in the correspondence above. I urge interested readers to consider our request letter to Nature of August 10, 2004 requesting relevant data from MBH that remains unarchived to this day:

We are disappointed that Nature has decided not to publish our submitted Communication, especially as the principal grounds appear to be the small word allotment in the Communications Arising section. We respectfully disagree with the conjecture that our work would be of interest to only a few specialists. The original Mann et al. paper has been widely applied and our previous commentary attracted considerable public interest. Be that as it may, the referees expressly encouraged us to continue our analysis of MBH98 and of multiproxy calculations generally and one of them expressly stated that our efforts should not be “hampered”.

In this spirit we are writing to reiterate long-standing requests for data and results from MBH98, which we have already communicated on several occasions. You had stated that these requests would be resolved in the new SI, but unfortunately this is not the case. While you are undoubtedly weary of this correspondence, our original request for disclosure was reasonable and remains reasonable. It is only the unresponsiveness of the original authors that is placing a burden on you and your associates. Some of these items have been outstanding for 7 months. They were not attended to in the new SI and need to be dealt with promptly.

In particular, we still seek:

1)the results of the 11 “experiments” referred to in MBH98, including:
(a) the temperature principal components (69 series for all 11 steps);
(b) the NH temperature reconstruction (11 series from the start of each calculation step to 1980);
(c) the residuals (11 series from the start of each calculation step to 1980).
2) a list of the 159 series said to have been used in MBH98.
3) source code.

Since their claims of skill in reconstructing past climates depend on these “experiments” and their estimation of confidence intervals is based on the residual series, it is unnecessary to explain why these data are of interest. Again, we have repeatedly requested this data.

Their refusal is here saying in respect to the request (1) for the results of the individual steps as (“experiments”):

And with regard to the additional experimental results that you request, our view is that this too goes beyond an obligation on the part of the authors, given that the full listing of the source data and documentation of the procedures used to generate the final findings are provided in the corrected Supplementary Information. (This is the most that we would normally require of any author.)

I find it impossible to believe that they do not “normally” require authors to provide results of individual “experiments”, especially after a Corrigendum has been required. If so, that is a very poor policy.

Wallace and Gutzler’s teleconnections classic,

JM WALLACE, DS GUTZLER – Monthly Weather Review, 1981
109, No. 4, pp. 784–812. Teleconnections in the Geopotential Height Field during the Northern Hemisphere Winter,

was “cited” 781 times.

Interestingly, a paper that cited it, which also featured Wallace, clocks in with 1003…and it was written in 1997.

A biproduct to the Hansen check, there were big ice-core related citations for Vostok: J. R. Petit et al in Nature’99 (900+), and Greenland: W. Dansgaard et al in Nature ’93 (800+). Two rough indicators about this: Nature hit gold with these papers in 90s (we’ll see how thay do, now that they’ve gone “bunker”); and that ice core proxy citations are in a similar elite league as tree rings (at least for now).

Others may have different defintions and statistical estimation methods.

Of course, most others that use such methods prefer to stick with the way they were intended to be used.

Based on what I’ve seen in his regem code, standard use is not his forte.

Mark

The warmth of the 1990s was outside the range of variability as indicated in our reconstruction of past Northern Hemisphere temperature variations, taking the uncertainties in the reconstruction into account

This is true if you accept the uncertainties, as he chose to define and estimate them. Others may have different defintions and statistical estimation methods.

Here’s an interview with Mann that contains no hint of uncertainty.

In fact Mann says:

The now oft-cited assertion that “the 1990s are the warmest decade of at least the past 1000 years” is attributable to our ’98 Nature article (which established the result for the last 600 years) along with an extension of our work (which extended this conclusion to the past 1000 years) which we published in the journal “Geophysical Research Letters” in 1999. Our Nature article established that the warmth of the 1990s was outside the range of variability as indicated in our reconstruction of past Northern Hemisphere temperature variations, taking the uncertainties in the reconstruction into account.

When Mann can then write that he was misunderstood/misinterpreted, I would have to use a phrase coined by Chicago Bears coach, Mike Ditka: Mann, who are you crapping?