Response predictions:

“It would be foolish to” actually analyze the data statistically.

Check. Actual (Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust):
-McIntyre and McKitrick’s claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions)
generates ‘‘hockey sticks’ is unsupported in peerreviewed literature and reflects an unfamiliarity with the concept of screening regression/validation.

“The comments are nonsense” even though they are perfectly logical.

Check. Actual:
-McIntyre and McKitrick (1) raise no valid issues regarding our paper.
-The claim that ‘‘upside down’ data were used is bizarre.
-In summary, their criticisms have no merit.

“This was explained in supplement A1″ which was never made available to anyone.

Check. Actual:
-The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals) is conventional (3, 4) and was described explicitly in ref. 2
(also in ref. 5), and Matlab code is available at http://www.meteo.psu.edu/
mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeveri/calc_error.m.

“The symmetry of transient variable analysis has been fully accepted in the literature” in a vague non-published study from 4 years ago which actually said something completely different.

Check. Actual:
-They ignore subsequent findings (4) concerning ‘‘strip bark’ records
4. Wahl ER,AmmannCM(2007) Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Clim Change 85:33–69.

“The effect is completely opposite to that supposed by the author” despite the fact the data says exactly that.

Check. Actual:
-The claim that ‘‘upside down’ data were used is bizarre.

Re: Ron Cram (#26),

M&M misread the statistical journal they cited. The citation actually supports the method we used.

Check. Actual:
-Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National Research Council report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2).

Re: John A (#9),

My guesses for Mann-style responses include:
* no citations at all to standard statistical literature and no attempt to rebut M&M’s citations.

Check.

* all citations are to articles written by himself or his close Hockey Team friends.

Check. Actual:
1. McIntyre S, McKitrick R (2009) Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial
paleoclimate reconstructions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:E10.
2. Mann ME, et al. (2008) Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface
temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:13252–
13257.
3. Luterbacher J, Dietrich D, Xoplaki E, Grosjean M, Wanner H (2004) European seasonal
and annual temperature variability, trends, and extremes since 1500. Science
303:1499–1503.
4. Wahl ER,AmmannCM(2007) Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing
of proxy climate evidence. Clim Change 85:33–69.
5. Mann ME, Rutherford S, Wahl E, Ammann C (2007) Robustness of proxy-based climate
field reconstruction methods. J Geophys Res 112:D12109.
6. Osborn TJ, Briffa KR (2006) The spatial extent of 20th-century warmth in the context
of the past 1200 years. Science 311:841–844.

* a plea to overwhelming scientific consensus

Partial check. Actual:
-Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust
-McIntyre and McKitrick’s claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions) generates ‘‘hockey sticks’ is unsupported in peerreviewed literature
-McIntyre and McKitrick’s claim that the common procedure
(6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions)

I think the only key thing everyone missed is the used of the word “bizarre”.

Yes, that does sound like the Team. This response sounds like someone who is facing a somewhat similar Team. I know nothing about the dispute but generating five letters against one paper, all by people who are connected to the research team whose hypothesis was tested… well, it certainly looks like they are passionate if nothing else.

Validation of multivariate model of leaf ionome is fundamentally confounded. PNAS 2009 106:E6; doi:10.1073/pnas.0809853106

Reply to Evens and Niedz: Multivariate ionomics models are robustly validated. PNAS 2009 106:E7; doi:10.1073/pnas.0811786106

“robustly validated” – sounds like the Team.

“Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented,[...]”

You are right, the overwhelming majority of proxies indicate the opposite.

I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues.

“the jury is no longer out”

When did the jury come in? Does anyone know? Was the event recorded for posterity? Date and timestamp?

Andrew ♫

It is quite possible that, for example, the entire enterprise of trying to reconstruct the temperature history of the last millennium – the entire recent corpus of Mann, Briffa, Ammann etc is of “marginal relevance”, together with the corresponding IPCC chapters in AR4 and AR3 and all publications citing them. Given that IPCC AR4 was concerned about space, I suggested to them that they delete the entire discussion of these topics if they were not relevant to policy makers. I guess that the “consensus” was that these matters were relevant. So in that respect, your complaint should be addressed to them, rather than to me.

You provided no support for your allegation that the “technical” content is “flawed”. If you want to support this allegation on a technical thread, then please do so on one of the many threads, but I really don’t want to engage in shadow boxing on this sort of spitball throwing.

Let me be clear: In my opinion, most of CA “technical content” is flawed or of marginal relevance.

That’s my point, you do not understand the technical content herein and try your damnedest to marginalize everything based on irrelevant points that even you don’t understand fully. That Steve allows you to continue to post is, in my opinion, a gift.

I also strongly disagree with CA characterizations of climate scientists such as Mann, Schmidt and Hansen.

You’ve already made this clear, and I’ve already pointed out, as have others, that you simply don’t understand the arguments. The most fundamental I caught you on myself. It is a pity, really.

Mark

Looks to me like you asked if it was “peer reviewed,” implying an attempt to impugn the quality of the paper prior to you reading it (aka, poisoning the well), not whether or not it will be available for you to read.

It’s a brief letter to the editor, not a paper. Per referred to the “the news that you have got through peer-review” and I pointed out that this did not appear to be the case.

The availability is a separate issue. It’s still not clear to me whether the text of the letter will be freely available to the general public.

Don’t worry, we all know you’re trying hard to avoid addressing the technical content if you can. Why not just drop the pretense and admit it. Disinformation, indeed.

This doesn’t make any sense – how I can be avoiding addressing the “technical content” of a letter no one has seen?

Let me be clear: In my opinion, most of CA “technical content” is flawed or of marginal relevance. I would therefore characterize it as misinformation or obfuscation for the most part. I also strongly disagree with CA characterizations of climate scientists such as Mann, Schmidt and Hansen.

But I tend to reserve the term “disinformation” for the deliberately misleading “science” peddled by PR professionals such as Tom Harris and APCO Worldwide.

Steve

Oh? I did not notice but then I have to remember where I posted a comment usually, and since that happens when I remember it, I would not have noticed (says he as a geologist who is supposed to trained to notice the subtelies in nature). (Thinks he starting to sound like Bernard Woolley in the BBC Yes Minister series).