<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An Unpublished Law Dome Series</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/</link>
	<description>by Steve McIntyre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gergis 2012 Mark 2 – Hurdles to overcome &#171; ManicBeancounter</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-339858</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gergis 2012 Mark 2 – Hurdles to overcome &#171; ManicBeancounter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:10:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-339858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] filtering method of Gergis excluded the high quality Law Dome series, but included the lower quality Vostok data, and the Oroko tree ring proxy. McIntyre notes that [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] filtering method of Gergis excluded the high quality Law Dome series, but included the lower quality Vostok data, and the Oroko tree ring proxy. McIntyre notes that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Math of Green Energy - SLUniverse Forums</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-339125</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Math of Green Energy - SLUniverse Forums]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-339125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...]  [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: littlegreyrabbit</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-338591</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[littlegreyrabbit]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-338591</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just on the off chance, do they have Beryllium 10 data for that ice core series?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just on the off chance, do they have Beryllium 10 data for that ice core series?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Norman</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-338399</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff Norman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:23:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-338399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Laden or unladen?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Laden or unladen?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Alberts</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-338355</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff Alberts]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jun 2012 03:40:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-338355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What about African clamshells? ;)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about African clamshells? <img src='http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-338319</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frank]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-338319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DocM:  I doubt the work schedule accompanying the grant proposal for Law Dome proposed a two decade time period for completing and all of the archiving basic analyses.  (However, additional studies involving high resolution studies of periods of rapid change, new analytical methodology or new questions that might be addressed using the cores certainly could take this long.)  The policymakers paying for these studies and making decisions at Kyoto and Copenhagen are being told they can&#039;t wait decades before taking action.  

If climate science were a highly competitive area where a low percentage of grant proposals get funding, things would be different.  Then, to paraphrase your words:  &quot;Getting results that have an impact would be very, very, important&quot;.  An &quot;impact&quot; would be definitive conclusions about whether the MWP, the LIA, and the CWP penetrated south to Antarctica.  If various proxies disagree (as seems likely), which ones should we believe and why?  Other researchers need access to all of the Law Dome data so that they can test their hypotheses about why proxies may disagree.  .]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DocM:  I doubt the work schedule accompanying the grant proposal for Law Dome proposed a two decade time period for completing and all of the archiving basic analyses.  (However, additional studies involving high resolution studies of periods of rapid change, new analytical methodology or new questions that might be addressed using the cores certainly could take this long.)  The policymakers paying for these studies and making decisions at Kyoto and Copenhagen are being told they can&#8217;t wait decades before taking action.  </p>
<p>If climate science were a highly competitive area where a low percentage of grant proposals get funding, things would be different.  Then, to paraphrase your words:  &#8220;Getting results that have an impact would be very, very, important&#8221;.  An &#8220;impact&#8221; would be definitive conclusions about whether the MWP, the LIA, and the CWP penetrated south to Antarctica.  If various proxies disagree (as seems likely), which ones should we believe and why?  Other researchers need access to all of the Law Dome data so that they can test their hypotheses about why proxies may disagree.  .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duster</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-338317</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Duster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-338317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The dice analogy brings up a point that consistently bothers me when I see the word &quot;significant&quot; used in conjunction with arbitrary levels like 0.05 or 0.01.  I once threw 9 sixes with a single, honest die.  That has odds of something like 1 in 10 million of occurring by chance.  Never the less, such things happen.  When a sampling procedure is loaded to select &quot;sensitive&quot; series, hmmm.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The dice analogy brings up a point that consistently bothers me when I see the word &#8220;significant&#8221; used in conjunction with arbitrary levels like 0.05 or 0.01.  I once threw 9 sixes with a single, honest die.  That has odds of something like 1 in 10 million of occurring by chance.  Never the less, such things happen.  When a sampling procedure is loaded to select &#8220;sensitive&#8221; series, hmmm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duster</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-338314</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Duster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-338314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What&#039;s happening in the Palmyra chart?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s happening in the Palmyra chart?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ObtuseFaction</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-338313</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ObtuseFaction]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-338313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JSG,

The p value is the probability based on sampling procedures that the null hypothesis might be able to arrived at observed results.  The choice of experimental design, sampling procedures, and null hypothesis is very important to not arrive an apparent statistical rejection of null hypothesis that lacks meaningful scientific value.  The convention of using the null hypothesis and p values is already quite imperfect.  When procedures includes a step to select samples based on the dependent data, the impact on probabilities is ill-defined.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JSG,</p>
<p>The p value is the probability based on sampling procedures that the null hypothesis might be able to arrived at observed results.  The choice of experimental design, sampling procedures, and null hypothesis is very important to not arrive an apparent statistical rejection of null hypothesis that lacks meaningful scientific value.  The convention of using the null hypothesis and p values is already quite imperfect.  When procedures includes a step to select samples based on the dependent data, the impact on probabilities is ill-defined.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lucy Skywalker</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/12/an-unpublished-law-dome-series/#comment-338266</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lucy Skywalker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2012 08:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateaudit.org/?p=16301#comment-338266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[nicely put sir.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nicely put sir.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
