Comments on: Myles Allen Calls For “Name and Shame”

By: jeez

jeez — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:15:06 +0000

I just happened to take a stroll through one of Gergis’s blogs and happened upon this article which may not yet have been noted.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/opinion/no-more-climate-distractions/

By: It's all over but for the sweating? - Page 36 - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 20:22:45 +0000

[...] loads of warming in Australia – it even passed peer review. However in response to a data request she said: [...]

By: Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell | 2012 The Awakening

Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell | 2012 The Awakening — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:13:48 +0000

[...] et al, deserve a mention for prescreening of data (see subtitle “Screening Fallacy” here); selection of proxies in this manner constitutes partial publication – by only publishing the [...]

By: Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell | Watts Up With That?

Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell | Watts Up With That? — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:10:09 +0000

By: Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell | Digging in the Clay

Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell | Digging in the Clay — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 23:36:53 +0000

[...] et al, deserve a mention for prescreening of data (see subtitle “Screening Fallacy” here); selection of proxies in this manner constitutes partial publication – by only publishing [...]

By: Gergis et al Correspondence « Climate Audit

Gergis et al Correspondence « Climate Audit — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 01:42:11 +0000

[...] are aware, the issue of screening in Gergis et al 2012 was first raised in a CA post in a May 31 blog post, a discussion that directly quoted the following paragraph of Gergis et [...]

By: HaroldW

HaroldW — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 15:16:30 +0000

Myles Allen, in an email disclosed by an FOIA request, clarified that the burden falls on the editor: “If the editor thinks that a dataset is relevant and a challenge is serious, then he or she should be in a position to require disclosure of the relevant data or code or demand a paper’s retraction. Journals that consistently fail to do so can be named and shamed.”

It seems that editor Broccoli of the Journal of Climate did not enforce this disclosure. Or perhaps he merely accepted Karoly’s word that all relevant data had been provided. Karoly had written

Section 2 of the file listed under Ethical Guidelines for Authors etc states:
“2. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to public sources of information (literature and data) and methodology used to permit the author’s peers to test the paper’s scientific oonclusions.”
Our manuscript does that.

. Broccoli replied only that “Section 2 of the Ethical Guidelines for Authors is the only guidance from AMS that I am aware of regarding data access and data archival.”

Shouldn’t the focus be on Broccoli? It would seem a trivial matter to ask each reviewer, as a matter of course, to tick a box stating that he believes that the paper is compliant with Section 2. More importantly, with a challenge to the sufficiency of the data, he merely stood aside, writing “Please communicate directly with the authors regarding access to their data.” His inaction seems to indicate a disregard for conformance to his journal’s policy.

By: The “screening fallacy” « Who is da-boss?

The “screening fallacy” « Who is da-boss? — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 07:19:59 +0000

[...] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1850704 http://climateaudit.org/2005/02/06/jacoby-1-a-few-good-series/ http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/10/more-on-screening-in-gergis-et-al-2012/ [...]

By: JG

JG — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:29:15 +0000

The fact is, CERN throws 99% of their data away. I just saw this today:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/14/cern_cloud_helix_nebula/

Quote – Bob Jones, head of openlab at CERN:

The four major experiments at LHC – Atlas, LHCb, ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) and Compact Muon Solenoid – generate 1 petabyte of raw data per second, Jones said.

“We don’t record all that. Ninety-nine per cent is data we’ve seen before and we throw it away; the [other] 1 per cent and knowing which 1 per cent [it is] is IT’s job,” he added.

Despite binning so much of the data, CERN still ends up with around 15 million GB of data a year…

By: Australian Warming, Hockey Sticks and Open Review | "Global Possibilities"

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:29:29 +0000

[...] after questions were raised publicly about one of the researchers’ methods, starting with a comment on Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog. This field of study uses sophisticated statistical [...]