The continued negligence of the major journals in ensuring that paleoclimate authors archive data in accordance with journal policies is very frustrating and, as previously noted, has reared its ugly head once again with Osborn and Briffa. I have had little luck in the past with Science (except for the Kilimanjaro sample dO18 data) but […]
There is an interesting controversy at Nature and Science about peer review in the context of Hwang’s stem cell research (google for links.) I’m going to post a comment about this in light of my own experience with both. First, I want to post some information (courtesy of a reader here) about archiving policies at […]
A couple of months ago, after getting nowhere with Moberg on same peculiarities in some data sets (see right category Moberg et al ), I filed a Materials Complaint to Nature discussed here. There have been some developments on this. Readers may recall that, on a previous occasion, in connection with MBH98, Ross and I […]
A climateaudit first:- here is the first sample-by-sample àŽⳏ18 for an entire Thompson drill core – in this case KNIF2 and KNIF3 from Kilimanjaro. I had hoped that the data would be properly archived, but it was sent to me by Science and is webbed up here pending a more official archive, which will presumably […]
Some of you may recall the memorable climate science phrase: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. Here’s the story behind this and some updates on it.
As a result of refusals by Moberg, Sonchkin and Lauritzen, I’ve filed a Materials Complaint with Nature, which will hopefully result in the delivery of the data in less than geological time. In an email to me concerning a possible one year misdating of U.S. bristlecones, Moberg said that their "reconstruction does not contain any […]
Dmitry Sonechkin, the #2 author of Moberg, Sonechkin et al [2005], has replied that he cannot send the Indigirka series used in Moberg et al [2005] because the "series developers do not want to disseminate it. They say this series will be re-calculated soon to reject some errors in it (a general trend etc.)."
Anders Moberg sent a courteous response on the Lauritzen issue mentioned in More Moberg and Brandon Whitcher sent some comments on end effects in waveslim. Update Sep 7-8: I’ve been blown off totally so far by Moberg and Lauritzen in trying to obtain the digital data underlying the discrepant graphs.
Although Science has nice policies on paper requiring data archiving, in practice, its climate authors are singularly poor about doing so. Esper et al [2002] has enough missing data to make it very difficult to get traction on it. Here’s a letter that I sent today to Science requesting that they take steps to get […]
Science has recently weighed in with an editorial in which the editor of Science, Donald Kennedy, stated that he is “outraged” by the Barton Committee inquiring into processes for due diligence and disclosure in connection with science being applied for large-scale public policy. I thought that people might be interested in an account of my […]
Climate Audit 
Science Editorial
Science has recently weighed in with an editorial in which the editor of Science, Donald Kennedy, stated that he is “outraged” by the Barton Committee inquiring into processes for due diligence and disclosure in connection with science being applied for large-scale public policy. I thought that people might be interested in an account of my […]