Comments on: The Silence of the Lambs http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/ by Steve McIntyre Mon, 20 May 2013 05:49:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Skiphil http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-381193 Sat, 08 Dec 2012 02:04:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-381193 This is another thread that I think deserves more attention when any CA readers care to reflect. I found Steve’s reference to double (or conflicting) standards for proxy paleo studies to be of importance:

One of the many ironies of Mann et al 2008 – which Rob [Wilson] and others have not acknowledged – is that Mann excluded every Schweingruber RW series, which are a very high proportion of the ITDRB network selected according to a priori criteria. This total exclusion of the very large Schweingruber RW collection is distinct from the deletion of post-1960 values of the Schweingruber MXD collection.

Willis, I agree with your comments above. Of course, whenever we engage someone on this, we always get a bait and switch. Sure, seemingly sensible criteria can be located in the dendro literature, but in the study at hand, we get a garbage can with ex post picking. And all the studies with small networks are completely unprotected against data snooping, as evidenced by the repetitive choice of proxies.

]]> By: Singer’s Proxy Claim Refuted | Planet3.0 http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-324716 Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:32:38 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-324716 [...] more reasonable, or at least at-first-glance reasonable-sounding complaints from naysayers appear on that CA thread.  This one from Eschenbach,  for instance, one of the more coherent of the [...]

]]> By: Appeal of UEA’s Yamal FOI Refusal « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-304039 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:37:27 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-304039 [...] Michael Tobis or Andrew Dessler speak out against UEA’s refusal? Or will they maintain the silence of the lambs that we have observed in the past. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This [...]

]]> By: Mann of Oak « Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-252188 Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:24:31 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-252188 [...] However, surely it would have been far more relevant for them to speak up at the time of the publication of Mann et al 2008 and to have expressed this view as a comment on that publication. At the time, Climate Audit urged specialists to speak out against known misuse of proxies, but they refused to do so. (see Silence of the Lambs). [...]

]]> By: Blinded By Debate: Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and AGW Skeptics direct fire on friendly Baillie « The Cosmic Tusk http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-229667 Sat, 08 May 2010 03:59:15 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-229667 [...] However, surely it would have been far more relevant for them to speak up at the time of the publication of Mann et al 2008 and to have expressed this view as a comment on that publication. At the time, Climate Audit urged specialists to speak out against known misuse of proxies, but they refused to do so. (see Silence of the Lambs). [...]

]]> By: Mann 2008 a Victim of Sudden Oak Death? « Watts Up With That? http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-228517 Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:55:08 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-228517 [...] However, surely it would have been far more relevant for them to speak up at the time of the publication of Mann et al 2008 and to have expressed this view as a comment on that publication. At the time, Climate Audit urged specialists to speak out against known misuse of proxies, but they refused to do so. (see Silence of the Lambs). [...]

]]> By: Climate Research News » 119 ‘Useless’ Oak Tree Ring Chronologies Used by Mann et al 2008 http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-228402 Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:23:34 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-228402 [...] However, surely it would have been far more relevant for them to speak up at the time of the publication of Mann et al 2008 and to have expressed this view as a comment on that publication. At the time, Climate Audit urged specialists to speak out against known misuse of proxies, but they refused to do so. (see Silence of the Lambs). [...]

]]> By: Marginalized Action Dinosaur » Silence of the proxies. http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-166124 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:37:09 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-166124 [...] Climate Audit [...]

]]> By: Pat Frank http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-166123 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:23:47 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-166123 #78 — Willis wrote, “3) If they do contain such a signal, see if it can be split into its component parts (e.g. temperature, moisture, competition, catastrophic events).”

Thanks, Willis. That was a great post, as usual. IMO, item #3 is the kicker. By what biophysical theory can the effects you listed be quantitatively evaluated?

Metabolic theory applied to trees certainly predicts temperature limited growth, but not quantitatively. There are no known metrics derived from trees that can be cranked through a biophysical theory to produce a growth temperature.

This quantitative theory plain does not exist, and no statistical methodology can ever produce a physically meaningful metric where there is no physical theory.

]]> By: jae http://climateaudit.org/2008/10/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs/#comment-166122 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:43:23 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4095#comment-166122 Re: Willis Eschenbach (#79),

So it seems like the question has been raised, answered … and forgotten. The NAS BASC knows that it is critical to ensure that sample selection (at the site, tree, and core level, please note) is “based on a priori rather than a posteriori criteria”. But individual practitioners are still defending a posteriori criteria … or no criteria at all.

Willis, I have been saying this for over 2 years. Right on. I’ve never seen a branch of science where it’s permissible to bias your sample selection by cherry-picking the way the dendros do. And when they actually admit in public that “you have to pick cherries to make cherry pie,” it is especially repugnant. The current dendro-science methodologies are truly pathetic, considering the most basic tenents of scientific pursuit. And thanks for your great posts on this matter.

OK, Steve, I suppose I’m “piling on,” but dammit I feel very strongly about this part of the “science.”

Steve: Take a deep breath.

]]>