Comments on: Reply from Cicerone of NAS http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/ by Steve McIntyre Thu, 23 May 2013 18:47:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Cicerone Then and Now « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-219739 Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:53:12 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-219739 [...] NAS report of 2006 relied on many studies with unarchived data. I wrote to Cicerone (See CA here) , excerpt as follows: In many cases, I have corresponded both with the authors and the journals in [...]

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63771 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:14:46 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63771 Ken, I understand your feelings, but I won’t respond to my style within a thread where I’m engaged in the science. Put it in road map if you really care. Here, I want to keep the focus on my basic point which is that published analysis based on imperfect archived material is useful for two reasons:

1. It allows some insights to be gathered, particularly if the complete data is never released. (Of course, the lack of the complete data, should be frankly listed as a caveat that may affect the critical analysis.)

2. It highlights (gently) the lack of the complete data to the field and may in the course of thinks help pry it loose.

]]> By: Ken Fritsch http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63770 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:20:15 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63770

Note that 61 was NOT an order to Steve. (So don’t yell at me.) It was a response to bender. I think he had a good point. I just want to say that papers (even on incompleted information) can push the peanut forward. Maybe this is in a sense some part of the subset of public shaming.

Not yelling, but simply suggesting that your 1000 nits to pick approach, that well could have been adapted from Bush I’s 1000 points of light, is in my view not a very efficient way of making a point. I much prefer Steve M’s integrated approach that gives a better view of the “big picture” and allows the informed readers to judge for themselves some of the details.

Look at the time you waste here at this blog on numerous occasions attempting to make some minor point of interpretation, and I think sometimes not to further the discussion, but simply to extend an argument.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63769 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:40:03 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63769 The original online SI to MBH98 is no longer available at Nature although the Corrigendum SI is.

]]> By: per http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63768 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:38:17 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63768 i note that the article appears to have been deleted by mistake.

You might be interested in:
FASEB JOURNAL 19 (14): 1943-1944 DEC 2005
Unavailability of online supplementary scientific information from articles published in major journals
Printed articles increasingly rely on online supplements to store critical scientific information, but such data may eventually become unavailable. We checked the current availability of online supplementary scientific information published in six top-cited scientific journals ( Science, Nature, Cell, New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA). Here we show that in 4.7% and 9.6% of articles with online supplementary material, some of the supplements became unavailable within 2 and 5 years of their publication, respectively.

]]> By: UC http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63767 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:10:21 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63767 # 56
Not sure if I follow.. Anyway, I was referring to ‘A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization’ T. M. L. Wigley. Don’t have access to Science Express, but the abstact is here .

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63766 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:48:37 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63766 Fair enough.

See MM03 (EE)

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63765 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:17:12 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63765 Re # 61
What part of “show me” do you not understand?

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63764 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:40:34 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63764 Note that 61 was NOT an order to Steve. (So don’t yell at me.) It was a response to bender. I think he had a good point. I just want to say that papers (even on incompleted information) can push the peanut forward. Maybe this is in a sense some part of the subset of public shaming. But I am not advocating that the paper read as a “whine” about lack of data. I’m advocating that Steve show what analysis is possible based on the data that is public (with a very small caveat about the lack of data). This will help in two ways:

1. The caveat is like a subtle whine.

2. More importantly, replies from the aggreived Mannites will say that Steve did not have all the source data, but will then give more of an impetus to share it to argue against him.

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2006/09/18/reply-from-cicerone-of-nas/#comment-63763 Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:21:00 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=819#comment-63763 Publish papers based on the incomplete documentation (and include as a caveat within the papers, that the source material is incomplete).

]]>