Comments on: Coffin, meet nail.

By: SKS Behind the Scenes – On Deaf Ears « the Air Vent

SKS Behind the Scenes – On Deaf Ears « the Air Vent — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 15:37:03 +0000

[...] Hey all,There’s a feud going on pertaining to this post on RC http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/west-antarctica-still-warming-2/comment-page-2/#comment-199872followed by these two by climate audit:http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-duplicity/http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/08/coffin-meet-nail/ [...]

By: The code of Nature: making authors part with their programs | Watts Up With That?

Sun, 27 Feb 2011 05:35:11 +0000

[...] R code, as reviewer of their paper, a fact which was had remained unknown up-to that point. The ensuing conflagration is now [...]

By: HaroldW

HaroldW — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 04:07:11 +0000

CV = curriculum vitae. In a word, it’s a résumé. An academic typically lists all publications, making it longer than the résumés with which you (Ryan) would likely be more familiar.

An example: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html

By: Ryan O'Donnell

Ryan O'Donnell — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:45:11 +0000

Given that I don’t know what you mean by “CV”, you may safely assume that I am not a researcher by trade.

By: RandomM

RandomM — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:41:50 +0000

I’m always curious as to backgrounds of people in debates on the publication level and I’m trying to find CV’s for all of those involved in the two papers but can’t seem to find a site that will give me Ryan O’Donnell’s CV, alma mater, publications, unless he is the researcher at Carnegie Mellon, which I was told elsewhere was not the case.
Anyone?

By: Wie in „Nature“ (peer-reviewed) die Temperatur der Antarktis hochgerechnet wird! « infowars

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:20:02 +0000

[...] O’Donnell hat eine großartige illustrierte Darstellung der Merkwürdigkeiten veröffentlicht, wie Eric Steig die Trends in der Antarktis erzeugt. Wenn Sie [...]

By: Luis Dias

Luis Dias — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:26:01 +0000

Jeff, cut the losses and just forget about it. They are not worth to even try.

This only proves Curtis’ idea that the internet is not linking people, but balkanizing them into self-serving and echo-chambered groups. People then like PZ Myers, Phil Plait, etc., who are in completely different fields will just skim these posts and declare that “once again, the denialists…just like the homeopaths / creationists”, etc. Knowing this, RC declares that CA, tAV, Lucia’s, etc, are all “denialist scumbag places” and should be ignored, and they hook, line and sinker.

This is the why of the commotion. We all know RC’s importance on creating impressions in a very wide and big group of people out there, who fervently believe in everything these scientists spew, and see this as just a part of the “science wars”. Many good people do not like to be called “denialists”, “creationists”, “crooks”, etc., for being skeptical at the proclamations of these “real” scientists.

By: PedroS

PedroS — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:42:08 +0000

bernie: I understand your points, but I do not think that the dreadful RC approach to comments is an excuse: Eric Steig’s email is public, and can be Googled easily.
I did not make my comments in RC because I know that any points critical of Steig will be buried, and any criticism of Ryan O by CA-followers ther would be trumpeted as an RC public relations victory.

By: TonyG

TonyG — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:20:07 +0000

I asked Eric on RC (Comment by TonyG — 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:29 PM) for his comment on these very telling graphs, very well explained by Bishop Hill–and received a quick to-the-point reply.

Ryan, would you now please post a reply to Eric’s arguments? Which parts do you agree with, and which ones do you disagree? The logic of these arguments is sometimes becoming too confusing for a nonspecialist to untangle–and form an informed opinion… Thanks!

——-Here’s my RC post–and Eric’s reply———

Can we please go back to science? I am extremely interested in reading here a statistics, not psychology, -based response by Eric to Ryan O’Donnell’s latest post on CA which discusses in suggestive graphics the way Eric’s reconstruction responds to changes in the Peninsula… Please provide your technical rebuttal of O’Donnell’s criticism; that’s the only way this matter should be argued.

[Response: One of the things that those plots show is that there is still warming in West Antarctica even if the trends on the Peninsula were zero. So one of O'Donnell's main claims is shown by O'Donnell to be wrong. Of course, it is certainly true that the Peninsula warming -- to the extent it is correlated with the West Antarctic warming -- has an influence, as indeed it should. The stronger effect of our having using just 3 PCs is that Peninsula cooling is damped, which is the opposite effect. Of course, some of both happens, but in all the tests I've done, the latter is a large effect.--eric]

By: Jeff Id

Jeff Id — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:05:59 +0000

The paper was about addressing Kgnd, every reply was about addressing Kgnd, Eric just didn’t like/want the answer it gave. Iridge takes the decision out of our hands yet gets the same answer as the methods we originally had used to chose Kgnd. Now Eric knows full well that all the methods got the same answer, yet he is still hollering on about Kgnd. Certainly our choice can’t be as bad as he prefers if we get the same answer right?

If Kgnd was almost the point of the paper, yet he’s not happy. Kind of makes its own point doesn’t it.

The SI and first submission are on line (linked in the previous post) I think we all like that one better than the final – minus a few grammatical corrections. The SI has pictures/descriptions of Chladni patterns and side by side of the methods with area weighted included.