Let no one say that we at climateaudit do not contribution to coalition building. In the bibliography to Wahl and Ammann [Clim Chg 2006], we see the following citation: Wahl, E., Ritson, D. and Ammann, C. accepted, Reconstruction of century-scale temperature variations, Science If you can’t get accepted at GRL, you can always try Science.
For the first time, a member of the Hockey Team (Ammann and Wahl) has admitted that the verification r2 for the early steps of MBH98 are catastrophic. Results confirm our calculations – as we predicted. They have not explained the justification for issuing a press release that all our claims were "unfounded" and UCAR has […]
For your reading pleasure, here is our Reply to Ammann and Wahl (GRL). as submitted on Jan. 29, 2006. You don’t have access to the A&W Comment itself; [update: now here ] but if you re-read the Huybers article, it has the same points without all the mischaracterizations and misrepresentations of A&W. A&W also have […]
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 […]
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 […]
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 […]
Several years ago, there was a great controversy at the journal Climate Research regarding the publication of an article by Soon and Baliunas. Three editors, including Hans von Storch, felt that the peer review leading to acceptance of this article was flawed and resigned in protest. I want to compare some of these events to […]
The webcast of the April 6, 2005 presentations by Bradley, Crowley and Ammann is here. There’s lots that could be said about this presentation. I can only pick off a few points here.
Climate Audit 
11 Ammann Mentions in Mann's Barton Letter
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 […]