House of Lords Report

This sent in from a reader:

Here are a couple of quotes from a "peer reviewed" report published a
few hours ago.;

para 22 "We sought evidence that refuted the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, but have not come across any detailed rebuttal."

Para 23 "We are in no position to determine who is right and who is
wrong in the growing debate on the hockey stick. If there are historical
periods of marked temperature increase, it seems to us it is important
to know why these occurred. Overall, we can only urge that the issue is
pursued in the next IPCC Assessment."

I say "peer reviewed" because it is a committee report from the UK’s
House of Lords here.

It is surely ironic how quickly Mann et al. have been to cite internet "grey" literature such as posts or Wahl-Ammann press releases as validation of their position, while withholding information about rejections of their submissions to journals: the submission by Mann et al. to Climatic Change cited last year in Jones and Mann [2004] has never appeared and the Wahl and Ammann submission to GRL was rejected. I don’t view journal publication as determining the truth or falsity of any argument – I’m merely noting irony.


  1. Roger Bell
    Posted Jul 6, 2005 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    I couldn’t resist enquiring of UCAR whether they were going to send out a press release now that the Wahl and Amman GRL paper had been rejected. I got a very pleasant reply from Nicole Gordon who told me the GRL paper had been rejected because others had covered the subject already, but W and A were planning to resubmit. Their Climate change paper is still under review.
    Must admit I wonder how Mann wil fare with future referees……..

  2. Roger Bell
    Posted Jul 6, 2005 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

    Googling Michael Mann reveals that he will be moving to Penn State in the Fall and will be directing their Earth System Science Center. Hmmmm,……….

  3. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Jul 7, 2005 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

    Re#2 – I wonder if any items will get “lost in the move.”

  4. Jeff Norman
    Posted Jul 7, 2005 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    Re#2 Roger,

    What are you contemplating? Another opportunity to lose data/algorithms?


  5. Jo Calder
    Posted Jul 9, 2005 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

    William Connelly characterizes the Lords’ comment We sought evidence that refuted the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, but have not come across any detailed rebuttal. as bald-faced lying. Connelly directs their lordships to RealClimate to find such. I would imagine the committee would take this as seriously as any other non-peer reviewed source …

    The phrase bald-faced lying makes me laugh though.


    — Jo

  6. TCO
    Posted Sep 20, 2005 at 9:58 PM | Permalink

    I wonder if the move is connected at all to the hubub with the reconstruction? Could there have been an investigation (not publicized) by the dean? Even a UVA honor violation? (not sure if it applies to teachers…)

%d bloggers like this: