The reasons that Steve has had to continue to monitor these folks is because
(1)they keep making these stupid errors;
(2)they have stonewalled almost every attempt to gain access to their data and to their computer codes;
(3) the so-called “peer reviewed” scientific journals these people publish in are not properly or conscienciously reviewed at all and their errors and misstatements are rarely if ever called out;
(4) the celebrity treatment their incorrect “results” are given by the gullible media and by the IPCC;
(5) Steve is one of the few statisticians in the world who is interested enough in this, and is capable of ferreting these people out and is not afraid to do so,

and, finally, because literally trillions of dollars and millions of lives are at stake here. It is one of the most important issues of this century and we really, really ought to have honest science on which to base our decisions.

As I recall Francois was already in email contact with Ms Hebert, but as a further explanation of my previous post to this thread, it was based on a request for data that is fully acknowledged by the requestee. I do think, however, that the length of time it takes for an acknowledged response from a scientist is a legitimate factor in judging that scientist. In the meantime, I agree to be more patient and not jump to any conclusions.

Maybe she googled my name and dendrochonology, and found my post here… or maybe I’m just paranoid… oops, gotta take my medicine…

In my mind, true and diligent scientists are always happy to provide data for others to analyze and in fact should relish a second opinion and the opportunity to debate a difference of interpretation.

A no reply speaks as loudly as a refusal in defining the scientist, but probably does not allow one to make the distinction between the potential deficiencies in true and diligent.

Right Answer + Wrong Method = Bad Science

This is his way of referring Duhamel, the reader asking for a “lay summary”, to the original Wegman and NAS reports that underlie the Bishop Hill story on Caspar Ammann. I think his point is that there are many, many ways to summarize this story. That asking for just one summary is asking too much given all the possible variants.