Comments on: Anthony’s Announcement

By: techno melody

techno melody — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:16:28 +0000

The statistical analysis in any study is the most important part IMHO

By: TerryMN

TerryMN — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:56:25 +0000

Mosher (and a lot of other people who comment here) have been pushing authors to “release the data, release the code” for a long time. It would be disingenuous to not hold the Watts et al team to the same standard.

The immediate cessation of snark and arrogance would be uncharacteristic too, IMO.

By: Lucy Skywalker

Lucy Skywalker — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:51:46 +0000

Sorry I thought I’d posted this on its own thread, it was not meant to be with my earlier reply to geochemist.

By: Lucy Skywalker

Lucy Skywalker — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:49:10 +0000

Steve Mac, I hope you will run a post (or even posts) here that allows people to “audit” Anthony’s paper thoroughly re the science, as Leif and many others know is essential for its safe passage through peer-review and publication.

I too subscribe to the notion that this paper is “tectonic” in its potential importance for the reform of Climate Science, and therefore deserves to be opened to the hardest and keenest criticism here.

By: Lucy Skywalker

Lucy Skywalker — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:27:58 +0000

Steve Mosher’s posts (some of them) irritate a lot of people, myself included. But Steve does at times have extremely important insights that support the whole process of bringing light into this murky corner of Science. He did astounding difficult, brave and responsible work handling CG1, which nobody should forget. And he’s been around a long time, generally supporting work here and bringing up relevant challenges and issues.

By: alex verlinden

alex verlinden — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:48:06 +0000

you’re a winner, Poptech ! … kudos

By: blackswhitewash.com

blackswhitewash.com — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:13:23 +0000

Just to clarify my “telling porky pies” comment, it was said tongue in cheek, it was not an accusation of lying, rather a “ooh you naughty little boys for keeping a smokescreen” – if indeed it was one.

By: Slabadang

Slabadang — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:45:31 +0000

Hi!

To map out who is who and why in the CAGWpropaganda circus. Who made Muller a “Voice” in the debate? Who appointed him as a speaker of “scpticism” in the kongressional hearings who is orcestrating this deceptive fars? Any leads?

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:59:38 +0000

Mosh was replying to me but I’ve only just seen his reply, having been poring over completely different data and source code. I think what he says is completely fair comment. Surface Stations is a remarkable example of mobilising citizen science through the internet. But of course they have to match BEST or better them on openness. I’m foursquare with Steve on that.

By: Steven Mosher

Steven Mosher — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:35:54 +0000

Pop.

I don’t write papers and have no intention of writing papers. I will prepare data for other people writing papers, or help manage the data they make public, but writing papers is not something I want to do. A blog post, yes, a poster, that was fun. But mostly it’s the data I am concerned about and open tools to make research more open. pretty simple. I might write a paper on a database or a tool, but not anything where I did actual climate science.A man has to know his limitations. If my name appears in anything but the acknowledgements its because someone decided that working on the data was some kind of authorship. In my mind, the person who writes the words is the author. quaint idea, but it keeps me from having to defend analysis that I disagree with.