[Climate Audit was started on Jan 31, 2005. Prior to its startup I had some notes at a prior website http://www.climate2003.com, which John A transferred to the CA blog at its start-up.]
Mann and some of his colleagues have set up a blog at the above address. A couple of Mann’s first postings have been arguments against our papers. I’ll post up a two quick comments [below]. I’m going to be in San Francisco at the AFU conference all next week, where I’m presenting a paper [see abstract] and will post some more when I get back.
Climate Audit 
8 Comments
Why not let them come here and post direct comments and you post comments over there (respectfully, Steve…these guys are serious professor types…your style of roughneck discussion needs to be restrained for their delicate flower sensability). but seriously, how about some direct discussion. Not just for sparks flying but for driving the thinking and for letting people judge for themselves the issues.
TCO,
Let me suggest that you read, or reread, Mann’s comments about Steve, and his writings, and bring us up to date on the delicacy displayed therein.
Also, you might fill us in regarding the basis for your suggestion that Steve does not “let them come here and post …”.
Down boy. I don’t respond well to people Tom Sawyering me into work. And I never said that Steve doesn’t let them come here. Has he invited them? Begged them? 😉 And I didn’t say he didn’t do that either! 😉
Oh…and I don’t care if Mann is indelicate the Steve. Steve is a tough miner. He can handle it. Those other guys are fluffy liberal Euro tea sippers who drive Volvos and listen to the breathy-voiced announcers on NPR’s Fresh Air.
Down boy yourself.
You’re cluttering this site with a barrage of flighty comments that waste the time of those who bother reading them.
I have some time to waste, but Steve may not.
But you are so good at watching out for his interests! You…you guy, you!
TCO,
Since the patterns of your recent comments exhibit no consideration whatsoever of either Steve’s interests, or of those of other visitors to this site, I will leave you to flap in your own wind.
Stay. Stay and defend your ward!
Here is the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_components_analysis
I can understand why to use PCA in patternmatching or with something like a “chemical nose” where you have some array and have differential responses and want to understand the tendancies. I’m not clear how it would be helpful in doing what feels to me like classical regression analysis (not that I know that either…but still). Also, not clear to me what is plotted in the hockey stick itself. Some additive set of PCs? But that’s totally different from the average of the data themselves. It’s just some factors. seems irrelevant to understanding an actual trend.