In Andrew Revkin’s recent blog posting, he made the following observation about blogs, referring in particular to Climate Audit: What is novel about all of this is how the blog discussions have sidestepped the traditional process of peer review and publication, then review and publication of critiques, and counter-critiques, by which science normally does that […]
I reported here on my efforts to get the WGIII Review Editors’ comments back online together with the Lead Authors’ Responses and the Review Editors’ Reports. I had sent Patrick Matschoss, the head of AR5 WGIII TSU an open letter for him to put to the IPCC Bureau urging an open and transparent process in […]
Recently, after the posting of the Phil Trans B archive on Sept 8, 2009, I determined that the Yamal data set as used by Briffa is not more “highly replicated” than the Polar Urals data set and thus there is no basis for the preferential selection of the Yamal chronology over the Polar Urals chronology […]
One of the aspects of the Yamal discussion that is perhaps clearer to regular CA readers than to new readers is that Briffa’s Yamal chronology was very different from ring width chronologies previously reported in the area (including by Briffa itself.) Shortly after the publication of Osborn and Briffa 2006 and D’Arrigo et al 2006 […]
I was one of the more industrious reviewers for IPCC AR4. In my Review Comments, I made frequent reference to Yamal versus the Polar Urals Update, expressing concern about the rationale for using Yamal rather than Polar Urals, an issue that is once again in play. Keith Briffa was the section author and can be […]
Obviously, there has been considerable controversy over the past few days over the Yamal data. First, let’s observe the continued silence of field dendros on the dispute. None have stepped forward so far to support Briffa’s use of 10 cores in 1990 (and 5 in 1995). As others have observed, their silence is rapidly becoming […]
Reader Lorax has many things to say about Climate Audit, all bad as far as I can tell. Editorially, this is leading to OT discussions on many threads, so I’ve established a thread for discussions with Lorax. (I’ve backdated the thread slightly so that it’s not at the top of the masthead right now.)
There is an interesting, and, in my opinion, very bold, comment (dated 9/27, here in Finnish (archive) ; Google Translation) in a Finnish web journal by professor Atte Korhola entitled “Recession in Climate Science”. Korhola: Esitän kärkeen heti teesin, jonka mieluusti alistan julkiseen kritiikkiin: kun myöhemmät polvet tutustuvat ilmastotieteeseen, he luokittelevat 2000-luvun alun tieteen historian […]
Climate Audit 
Yamal and IPCC AR4 Review Comments
I was one of the more industrious reviewers for IPCC AR4. In my Review Comments, I made frequent reference to Yamal versus the Polar Urals Update, expressing concern about the rationale for using Yamal rather than Polar Urals, an issue that is once again in play. Keith Briffa was the section author and can be […]