Luboà…⟠Motl pointed out that IPCC "needs" Ammann and Wahl in a peer reviewed journal. Let’s re-visit some curious timing issues, which Ian Castles brought up before and which need to be re-examined with the re-submission. The IPCC WG1 timetable (thanks to Ian for this) says the following: Third Lead Author meeting, December 13 to 15, […]
I’m posting up our July 2005 review of Wahl and Ammann. The recently accepted version is here. I’m posting this up for a variety of reasons. Mann relied heavily on Wahl and Ammann in his NAS panel testimony (which wasn’t even online as accepted last week) and so it’s hard to finish off the discussion […]
I noticed the following quote from Esper et al 2003 (reference in earlier post It is important to know that at least in distinct periods subsets of trees deviate from common trends recorded in a particular site. Such biased series represent a characteristic feature in the process of chronology building. Leaving these trees in the […]
Are any of you keeping track of the news on the trials of Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling? Andrew Fastow, their CFO, was on the stand yesterday. There’s a terrific book about Enron by Kurt Eichenwald, in which the House Energy and Commerce Committee is mentioned (they had a piece of some Enron […]
Mann cited Wahl and Ammann’s recently released paper at NAS (which was not available to us in time for the NAS panel, although I’d seen and reviewed an earlier draft.) After reading it, Per said that he thought that the reviewers had done a lousy job. Now I was only a reviewer for the first […]
I’m going to jump ahead a little and report on Hughes, who spoke on Friday morning. My notes on Hughes are decent by my standards. I’ll come back and describe our presentation next and then get to Mann’s. Neither Hughes nor Mann attended Thursday’s session or reception. I missed meeting Mann on Friday as I […]
Obviously Climate Audit has captured a small part of the zeitgeist of the scientific world, especially in regards to the obvious failures of peer review to detect bad practice and scientific misconduct. It has been asked by some climate scientists why access to original data and full disclosure is so important, as if proper audit […]
My notes on Luterbacher and Hegerl are not very good. Hegerl, in particular, was very difficult to follow and it would have been hard for the panel to assimilate. She made one nice observation – someone asked her about confidence intervals with low correlations. She said that they would be from the floor to the […]
D’Arrigo presented their new study. I went over and introduced myself and said that I thought that their new study was much better than Osborn and Briffa and that it was too bad that they hadn’t received the same publicity. She said – Well, I guess that’s a compliment of sorts. I was trying to […]
Mann told the NAS panel: "I am not a statistician". No one on the panel contested that claim. A friend sent me Mann’s bio distributed as part of today’s Margolin Lecture at Middlebury College, which says that the focus of his research is "the application of statistical techniques to understanding climate variability and climate change […]
Climate Audit 
Why peer reviewed publication is not enough
Obviously Climate Audit has captured a small part of the zeitgeist of the scientific world, especially in regards to the obvious failures of peer review to detect bad practice and scientific misconduct. It has been asked by some climate scientists why access to original data and full disclosure is so important, as if proper audit […]