Comments on: Yamal and IPCC AR4 Review Comments

By: Climate Terrorism? Contrived Climate Science Holds World to Ransom | Dr. Tim Ball

Tue, 03 May 2011 20:59:39 +0000

[...] example, McIntyre raised the problems with the hockey stick as an official IPCC Review Editor: The seemingly biased selection of Yamal over Polar Urals has [...]

By: Re-Visiting the "Yamal Substitution" « Climate Audit

Re-Visiting the "Yamal Substitution" « Climate Audit — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:35:23 +0000

[...] Polar Urals versus Yamal motivated many of my Review Comments on AR4 (as reviewed in a recent post here), but these Review Comments were all shunted aside by Briffa, who was acting as IPCC section [...]

By: Big Tobacco and Climate Change Deniers « Manicbeancounter’s Weblog

Big Tobacco and Climate Change Deniers « Manicbeancounter’s Weblog — Sat, 15 May 2010 20:27:03 +0000

[...] drawing conclusions through comparing and contrasting. For instance Steve McIntyre has posted his reviewer’s objections to the analysis of past temperatures in the 2007 assessment report, and the rejections. [...]

By: MrPete

MrPete — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:45:27 +0000

Re: bender (#97),
Yes. I really do like the T3 tax idea, even if the details have to change. I love the concept of finding a way to make it in people’s best selfish interest to get the science right, and removing the incentive to bias it. Of course, the challenge is finding a metric that realistically is tied to human impact

By: bender

bender — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:55:36 +0000

Re: MrPete (#96), This McKitrick carbon taxation scheme is so simple and sensible it's ingenius.

By: MrPete

MrPete — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:27:40 +0000

Re: Michael Smith (#95), Yes. See in particular the table on page 11. Devastating to the view that IPCC evenhandedly covers the science.

By: Michael Smith

Michael Smith — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:35:40 +0000

Re: Frank (#91),

Here is a paper by Ross McKitrick that illustrates what the IPCC is likely to do with any paper Steve publishes: http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/McKitrick.final.pdf

By: bender

bender — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:30:56 +0000

Re: Frank (#91), Steve has provided enough information now that there are hundreds qualified to write such a paper. Since they're the experts and Steve is "unqualified" why aren't people demanding THEM to write the paper? The reality is that not all of the data and methods are available to recalculate the curves in those spaghetti graphs. D'Arrigo et al. (2006) tried to get Briffa's data and couldn't. Why does Steve have to do what the insiders themselves cannot? Can't you see that he is having impact through this blog, leveraging data so that others can do what he doesn't have time for?

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:24:28 +0000

Re: Frank (#91), It is not difficult at all, the IPCC reports habitually ignore literature they don't like, such as Pielke jr's work on hurricane damage being mainly due to development in coastal areas, or Svensmark's work, or Lindzen or ...This idea that if Steve simply published his results the Team would have to salute is silly. No such thing would occur.

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:19:53 +0000

If one spends months coring trees and getting bit by bugs, it is tempting to hold onto the data and use it over and over, as we see the dendros doing. This conflicts with the need to be able to verify results. My experience is that many field people will not release their data, and not just in climate science. They simply don’t bother to respond to such requests. They would rather not be cited in subsequent papers than let go of what they collected (even when it was techs who did the collecting).