Climate Audit

13 Comments

1. Arthur Dent
   Posted Sep 20, 2008 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

   Didn’t someone say “You can’t make a cherry pie without using cherries”

2. Steve McIntyre
   Posted Sep 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

   That was Rosanne D’Arrigo. I also liked Esper et al 2003:

   However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.

3. Stan Palmer
   Posted Sep 20, 2008 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

   Do I understand this?

   Mann claims to have hundreds of proxies but in the recent period he has only 55 with values. These are chosen with an unknown criteria. The remaining proxies are given values that are just weighted values of the chosen 55. So in reality, his hickey stick is the outcome of a specifically chosen set of 55 proxies.

   The hockey stick is not the result of a measurement but of a method of construction.

   Is this correct?

4. Kieran
   Posted Sep 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

   Mann claims to have hundreds of proxies but in the recent period he has only 55 with values. These are chosen with an unknown criteria. The remaining proxies are given values that are just weighted values of the chosen 55. So in reality, his hockey stick is the outcome of a specifically chosen set of 55 proxies.

   The hockey stick is not the result of a measurement but of a method of construction.

   As I understand it, all of the above are true. In addition, he splices the temperature record on, and then uses non-published statistical methods to process them.

5. Robert Wood
   Posted Sep 20, 2008 at 5:02 PM | Permalink

   Mann-made global warming … de-dum.

6. J.Hansford.
   Posted Sep 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM | Permalink

   Mann made warming!… I like that. I it a lot. That has set me chuckling for the rest of the day. 🙂

7. aurbo
   Posted Sep 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM | Permalink

   A good piece of work from Jeff Id.

   If his analysis stands up, not only are the wheels off the wagon, but the horses are dead.

8. Pete
   Posted Sep 21, 2008 at 7:43 AM | Permalink

   This is too unbelievable to believe and that’s probably also what those who get lost at the word statistics are thinking.

9. kim
   Posted Sep 21, 2008 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

   This is kind of amusing. Jeff Id’s work is on icecap.us mislabelled as Ian Jolliffe’s.
   ===================================================

10. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 21, 2008 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    #(. I’ve sent a message to them urging them to correct this right away. I try to maintain a tone of irony rather than accusation and not to speculate on motives. Whether something was done intentionally or just because of goofiness is immaterial to the existence of an error. No one is ever going to be able to find out whether something was done intentionally or not. So it is a waste of breath and energy making such accusations. All that is relevant is whether the method is erroneous. People can draw their own conclusions. I’ve emailed them, suggesting that they restrain their language.

    • kim
      Posted Sep 21, 2008 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#10),

      It looks like Joe changed the title, too, Steve.
      ==========================

11. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Sep 21, 2008 at 9:52 AM | Permalink

    They’ve already fixed it. Maybe we’ll get the rain in Maine fixed some day.

    • bender
      Posted Sep 21, 2008 at 10:06 AM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#11),
      Is the internet not beautiful? No excuse whatosever these days for footdragging, non-compliance.