Readers may recall the consternation of the NAS Panel when von Storch (and ourselves) started presenting answers to some of Boehlert’s questions. I received notice today from NAS that: You might also notice that there have a been a few minor changes to the Committee’s Statement of Task.
DF criticized my post on principal components yesterday as follows: Most of your figures for conventional PC analysis are misleading. You are comparing PCA1 to mean as if PCA1 has an intrinsically meaningful scale, when it does not. If you rescaled your comparison plots so that PCA1 and the mean had the same variance, then […]
Rob Wilson sent in a post on another thread arguing that bristlecones are not as bad a proxy as I would have everyone believe. Unlike realclimate, opposing views are not censored here. In fact, I’m happy to highlight them. I’ll read Rob’s note and reply on an another occasion. I’ll only note now that, in […]
TCO has been pressing about the exact impact of various properties of the MBH PC methodology, asking some "elementary" questions about PC impact. Some readers have criticized him for in effect asking for a tutorial on PC methods. However, if someone asked: where can I find an article showing the statistical properties of PC methods […]
It often feels like shoveling out a swamp in dealing with the misrepresentations of our stuff. Someone over at Tim Lambert has said that I “originated incorrect information” about Mann’s CENSORED directory: So my original point stands that McIntyre originated incorrect information such as the idea that the data in the ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/BACKTO_1400-CENSORED directory only has […]
I was asked to review the Wahl and Amman submission in May 2005 and recently posted up my review here. The first recommendation in my review was that all Wahl and Ammann remove all arguments that depended on their rejected GRL article. They didn’t and now it’s come back and should haunt them. Despite providing […]
New Scientist ran a lengthy article on the Hockey Stick. They seem to have talked to everyone involved except Ross and I. In 2004, even before our GRL article published, a freelancer for New Scientist had got interested in the story and spent a lot of time interviewing me on the telephone. It got to […]
In February 2006, Luckman and Wilson archived their STD chronology for the Athabasca Glacier, Alberta site (STD fits each tree individually; RCS fits trees in groups.) Rob Wilson wrote in criticizing an earlier post for, among other things, not showing their STD version and for how I implemented the RCS emulation for Esper et al […]
Some people, including some who are not particularly sympathetic to the thoughts expressed here, suggest that the way that I do things is ineffective and have a variety of suggestions on how I could get my views across better. Mostly they involve less blogging and more journal submissions. Maybe they’re right . However, I noticed […]
There are 3 different versions of the Alberta site that have been applied in multiproxy reconstructions: 1) Luckman et al [1997] used in Jones et al [1998]; Crowley and Lowery [2000]; Briffa [2000]; 2) Esper et al. [2002] ; 3) the version used in Osborn and Briffa [2006], presumably from Luckman and Wilson [2005] and […]
Climate Audit 
New Scientist on the Hockey Stick
New Scientist ran a lengthy article on the Hockey Stick. They seem to have talked to everyone involved except Ross and I. In 2004, even before our GRL article published, a freelancer for New Scientist had got interested in the story and spent a lot of time interviewing me on the telephone. It got to […]