Comments on: Jeff Id http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/ by Steve McIntyre Sun, 26 May 2013 00:21:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: kim http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162883 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:42:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162883 Re: Steve McIntyre (#10),

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

]]> By: bender http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162882 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:06:12 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162882 Re: Steve McIntyre (#11),
Is the internet not beautiful? No excuse whatosever these days for footdragging, non-compliance.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162881 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:52:01 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162881 They’ve already fixed it. Maybe we’ll get the rain in Maine fixed some day.

]]> By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162880 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:47:20 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162880 #(. 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.

]]> By: kim http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162879 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:14:22 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162879 This is kind of amusing. Jeff Id’s work is on icecap.us mislabelled as Ian Jolliffe’s.
===================================================

]]> By: Pete http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162878 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:43:48 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162878 This is too unbelievable to believe and that’s probably also what those who get lost at the word statistics are thinking.

]]> By: aurbo http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162877 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 05:49:29 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162877 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.

]]> By: J.Hansford. http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162876 Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:03:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162876 Mann made warming!… I like that. I it a lot. That has set me chuckling for the rest of the day. :-)

]]> By: Robert Wood http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162875 Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:02:24 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162875 Mann-made global warming … de-dum.

]]> By: Kieran http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/20/jeff-id/#comment-162874 Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:45:54 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3718#comment-162874

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.

]]>