I have the numerical data, with column names, courtesy of Steve McIntyre, but am now quite lost when I try to reconcile the names used in this thread with those that I am familiar with, or, equivalently the column numbers.

I would be most grateful for some enlightenment in this regard.

Robin

geocities was acquired by Yahoo. Based on the whois information

Tech Name………… YahooDomains TechContact
Tech Email……….. domain.tech -at- YAHOO-INC.COM
Tech Phone……….. +1.6198813096

Have you tried contacting them at that email address?

Sinan

RE: Evan Jones:

And now you report that the archived data has been screwed with. I find this outrageous. Rather than rolling logs under your feet, why do they not act like real-life scientists and try to get to the truth of the matter?

Because the truth is inconvenient.

Do you have R code scripts for your analysis above?
Also, where are the scripts and data files which used to be at Climate2003 now located?

Thanks,

DaleC.

Steve: I’ve put the data and script directories at http://www.climateaudit.org/data/climate2003/data and /scripts. I got tired of paying for climate2003 when I’ve got capacity here and have tried to figure out how to transfer the domain name to this server, but haven’t had any luck so far. The old site was at geocities, so if anyone knows how to wade through domain transfer, let me know.

I’ll post up these scripts – I need to make some data input references to external files to make it transportable, but this shouldn’t take very long.

Well, the only thing that immediately comes to mind that might explain the large discrepancy in the RE statistic is that WA used the MBH Gaspe series in their “No Bristlecone, No Gaspe” (i.e. MM) reconstruction. I know it sounds crazy, but this is The Team we’re talking about here.

That seems to be the answer. When you read the running text, scenarios 5 and 6, labelled “No Gaspé” are not actually “No Gaspé” cases. The pea moved under the thimble. What “No Gaspe” means is this: the problematic Cook Gaspe series is not used as an individual proxy in the pre-1450 segment (when there are only 1-2 cores), but is used for the periods after 1450.

You have to drill through several sly descriptions. For example, Scenario 6 is described as follows in the running text:

Scenario 6 illustrates this observation by direct exclusion of the bristlecone/foxtail pine records from the data set used to calculate North American ITRDB proxy PCs (note, the Gaspe data are also removed as in scenario 5). …

Reconstruction was done over 1400–1499 using the same structure as scenario 5, with the additional elimination of the 15 bristlecone/foxtail pine records from the North American ITRDB data prior to PC calculations. (The 15 records eliminated are the same as those eliminated in scenario 3.

Now merely reading the phrase “the Gaspe data are removed as in Scenario 5″ together with the caption “No Gaspe” might well lead an unwary reader to conclude that the Gaspe data were removed as a sensitivity test in both scenarios. This proves not to be the case. Elsewhere:

Reconstruction was done over 1400–1499 by including PC summaries of the North American proxy data from the ITRDB: replacing the original MBH-calculated PCs with newly calculated PCs based on excluding the Gaspe series (i.e., removing it as an individual proxy over 1400–1449 and as part of the data set used to calculate the North American ITRDB PCs).

Here’s what they did. MBH used Gaspe twice in the original study – once as treeline11.dat as an individual proxy and once as cana036 in the NOAMER principal components. WA said that they eliminated the duplicate use in the NOAMER network. The statement here also says that they removed it as an individual proxy in the 1400 network, but not the 1450 network.

So the answer to the question about what’s different in the Wahl-Ammann 1450 network than the 1400 network: it’s the Gaspe series!!!

But there’s also something else going on that I can’t figure out. I should be able to replicate their RE stats, but so far I can’t. (Actually I’ve got something else to test: I’ve been using Mann proxy weights in my calcs, but Wahl-Ammann “simplified” the algorithm by using uniform weights. This could have a noticeable impact on the Gaspe weight and RE statistics.

I won’t comment on your detractors other than to say that they do not treat people decently as befits scientific inquiry and I heartily distrust them.

And now you report that the archived data has been screwed with. I find this outrageous. Rather than rolling logs under your feet, why do they not act like real-life scientists and try to get to the truth of the matter?

It seem to me that the defenders of the hockey stick are what we refer to as “Bad Tribunes” in the history biz.

A lot of the stats are over my head, but I will continue to track this debate. I am sure you know that the evidence from my side of the street supports the MWP bothe East and West (there’s not much archaeological evidence available from the SH one way or the other, unfortunately).

What is your opinion of the Harvard-Smithsonian (2003) study on the matter?

In the mean time, can anyone else spot where the pea moved under the thimble in the WA analysis?

Well, the only thing that immediately comes to mind that might explain the large discrepancy in the RE statistic is that WA used the MBH Gaspe series in their “No Bristlecone, No Gaspe” (i.e. MM) reconstruction. I know it sounds crazy, but this is The Team we’re talking about here.