Comments on: AR5 (ZOD) and Mike’s “PNAS Trick”

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:23:56 +0000

Anyone up for a bit of science housecleaning? In light of the rapid, well credited PNAS retraction on a different kind of paper, subject of a recent post at the RetractionWatch blog, perhaps this is a good time for any academic scientists to press for a proper professional society investigation into the Mann et al. (2008) paper. Compare the involvement of a Nobel Prize winner which may have helped to move the recent case along rapidly with the endless stonewalling, obfuscation, and worse by the Mann-RC team: still no Mann et al. (2008) PNAS retraction

By: Skiphil

Skiphil — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:07:52 +0000

Compare with Mann and friends, here is how corrections in science ought to proceed, rapidly and with due credit: rapid PNAS retraction

The authors wish to note the following: “The contrast of our final projection map was inverted, so that we interpreted the background density rather than the actual protein density in terms of structural features of the potassium channel-Fv complex. In addition, we indexed the 2D crystals with unit cell parameters of a = b = 175 Å, while the correct indexing would be a = b = 124 Å. Given these analysis errors, the resulting density map and our interpretation of the structural features are not correct. Accordingly, we would like to retract this paper. We acknowledge Yoshinori Fujiyoshi, Rod MacKinnon, Kazutoshi Tani, and Tom Walz for identifying the errors and pointing them out to us.”

By: Antii ojala | Bgpsav

Antii ojala | Bgpsav — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 03:37:02 +0000

[...] AR5 (ZOD) and Mike’s “PNAS Trick” « Climate AuditDec 13, 2011 … We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala (co-author of the original work). It’s weakly inversely … [...]

By: Punksta

Punksta — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:10:34 +0000

So according to Gavin, usually when the blogging hoi polloi call for some correction or retraction, the professionals have already done it (presumably without recourse to Mike’s Dodge Trick or similar).

Some hard data on all this diligent error-correction should prove interesting.

Steve: in a number of cases, Mann made changes at this website almost immediately after the error was pointed out at Climate Audit (always without citation.) A subsequent reader would therefore think that the “professionals” had caught the error themselves. If you recall the Harry incident, Gavin went to extraordinary lengths to deny any credit to Climate Audit for spotting even the small point involved in this incident – even pretending that there was a Mystery Man who had “independently” spotted the problem.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:47:25 +0000

They added the section on divergence. I always assumed that your “one reviewer wrote” was your referring to yourself.

So you have been accepted as a reviewer, but all the quotes above are from the leaked source?

By: barn E. rubble

barn E. rubble — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:48:32 +0000

RE: “I did that last time and they ignored everything.”

Apparently that’s the point of review, or at least that’s how Phil sees it . . .

RE: Response to Mike’s PNAS paper

Phil Jones wrote:
“It seems that the point of a review …. is pointless.”

Here’s the thread:

*****
#839
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=789
date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:15:58 +0100
from: Gabi Hegerl
subject: Re: mikequestion
to: Phil Jones

Hi Phil, I wrote the editor I needed time to think about this, did a thorough reread, made 1 tough and a few friendly comments on the things I thought author really did need to change, took a deep breath and signed it.
Mike got back to me right away and was very friendly about it (of course cant hear what he says behind my back:) and had suspected somebody else!
thanks for your advice on this!

Gabi

Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Gabi,
> I think this is par for the course. See what Tom thinks. Tom can probably write you a good response letter to the editor saying that the author hasn’t taken any of my comments into account. It seems that the point of a review …. is pointless.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
> At 14:34 21/05/2008, you wrote:
>> Hi Phil, just looking at Mikes responses to my review of the PNAS paper – is it normal for Mike to just pretty much tell the reviewer reviewer is clueless, or possibly I really am clueless?
>>
>> cheers, next IDAG meeting timing coming tomorrow or friday
>>
>> Gabi

By: MikeN

MikeN — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:29:17 +0000

Steve were you nominated and accepted as a reviewer this time around?
If so, I would think that they would not approve of your commenting on the reviews outside the proper channels. And these blog posts cannot be deleted.

Steve: they sent me request/order to remove comments on the ZOD. I’ll post it up. As a result, I haven’t downloaded the FOD yet as a reviewer. I’m pretty sure that I won’t sign up as a formal FOD reviewer. I did that last time and they ignored everything.

By: barn E. rubble

barn E. rubble — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:49:12 +0000

RE: “This and the last several threads certainly justify Phil’s decision not to give you the data because all that you want to do is find something wrong with it.”

Perhaps Phil had other reasons, RE:#0721, Aug 2009

*****
date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:29:37 +0100
from: Olive Heffernan
subject: Re: Piece for CRU web site
to: Phil Jones

Hi Phil,

Thanks so much for that. I have one other question: McIntyre claims
that you sent data to Peter Webstre at Georgia Tech, but that you
would not supply him with the same data. Is that true, and if so, what
was the reasoning?

Best,
Olive

On 07/08/2009, Phil Jones wrote:
> Here it is. There will be a link to the agreements – which are attached.
> Files won’t go up with these names. You should recognize one of these
> – the data agreement between the Met Office and NERC.
>
> Met Services appear want to be able to sell data commercially.
> As I said some has more value than other types of data. Most
> put in clauses separating academic from commercial use.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)REDACTED
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0)REDACTED
> University of East Anglia

By: michael hart

michael hart — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:01:43 +0000

Crosspatch,
I think the answer to your second question, is “Yes”. Or at least it used to be the case. Articles accepted and published basically because an established member said it was OK.
However, I confess I’m not up to date on this. I’ve heard that PNAS has tightened things up a bit in recent years.

By: jae

jae — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 03:57:49 +0000

“In Mann’s defense, however, it should be remembered that PNAS has a strict policy of grandfathering into the scientific canon any error they have published that has been in print for more than 3 months, so that they might not have accepted a correction in any event.”

SO, after 3 months, anything published is considered “peer-reviewed gospel?”

Weird. And very unsupported by any logic. And even unscientific, I say.