realclimate recently advertised an interview at Daily Kos with Schmidt, Mann and Rahmsdorff. There has been an interesting exchange arising from the following posting by a reader. One thing that readers of this interview are missing is the fact that Dr. Mann’s dismissal of the criticism of the "Hockey Stick" science is papering over some […]
I’ve just noticed at the UCAR website that Ammann and Wahl now say that their CC re-submission was “provisionally accepted” on Dec 12. I have no information on what a "provisional acceptance" means, but it’s certainly a coincidence that the “provisional acceptance” occurred only 3 days after GRL agreed to send their previously rejected GRL […]
MBH98 and subsequent Mannian papers (MBH99, Rutherford et al , 2005) report briefly that they tested calibration residuals (not verification residuals) for normality and whiteness. These results are used to calculate confidence intervals. They do not use typical tests for whiteness e.g. Ljung-Box portmanteau statistic used not just in econometrics, but also in climate e.g. […]
Continued from Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 OK, back to Ammann at AGU, his answer to the cross-validation R2 and my offer to him after our lunch. I think that asking for the cross-validation R2 was a good one-bite question at several different levels. First, it’s objective and any prevarications are noticeable to the […]
As I was writing up my note on Ammann at AGU, I re-read Mann’s reply to Barton, which mentions "ammann" no fewer than 11 times, usually as an "independent" scientist confirming his results. I’ve collected the mentions here, which make for some merry reading. Then I’ll discuss exactly how "independent" Caspar Michael Ammann (should we […]
Remember the argument of Gavin and Rasmus that you shouldn’t use empirical temperature data to calibrate ARIMA models to provide null distributions, which they used against Cohn and Lins. I’m not sure that the argument is valid, but if it is, then they should not have selectively used it against Cohn and Lins, since Mann […]
Continued from Part 1, Part 2 One more bit of review before we get to Ammann’s answer. As an excuse for not answering the request of the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the R2 statistic, Mann told them that his “colleagues and [himself] did not rely on this statistic” in the following terms: The […]
Continued from Ammann at AGU (#1). I’m going to give a fairly brief account of previous attempts to get the residual series and/or cross-validation R2 from Mann, including inquiries to Mann, N.S.F., through Nature, by Climatic Change, by Natuurwetenschap & Techniek and by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. As you will see, no one […]
Ammann made a presentation at the same AGU session as me, spending a considerable amount of time criticizing us — though with nothing new to say that we haven’t already rebutted here and in print. There was time for one question (AGU is fanatical about schedules) and I was recognized. So here’s my question to […]
Obviously one of the major themes of the M&M articles is the remarkable lack of robustness of MBH98. Bürger and Cubasch, hot off the press at GRL, asks the following question: whether or not the MBH98 and relative approaches are robust, including the predictor selection issues as argued by McIntyre and McKitrick [2005a], is the […]
Climate Audit 
The Hockey Team at Daily Kos
realclimate recently advertised an interview at Daily Kos with Schmidt, Mann and Rahmsdorff. There has been an interesting exchange arising from the following posting by a reader. One thing that readers of this interview are missing is the fact that Dr. Mann’s dismissal of the criticism of the "Hockey Stick" science is papering over some […]