The cat has finally dragged in Mann et al, Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods, url 😉 Supplementary info. This article was first cited by the rather bilious 😈 Referee #2 for Burger and Cubasch , as though Burger should have been aware of its findings. The coauthors are the “independent” authors: Wahl, Ammann […]
Gerd Bürger published an interesting comment in Science 2006 on cherry-picking in Osborn and Briffa 2006. A few CA readers have noticed the exchange and brought it to my attention. Eduardo Zorita (who I was glad to hear from after our little dust-up at the Nature blog) sent me the info as did Geoff Smith. […]
I’ve posted on several occasions on the deletion of the “inconvenient” section of the Briffa reconstruction. Now that the review comments are online, I want to reprise this, just so you can understand the IPCC process a little better. This repeats some earlier material. As an IPCC reviewer, I Show the Briffa et al reconstruction […]
I recently received a copy of how IPCC authors answered the review comments, including their answers to the requirement of one reviewer that the deleted Briffa data be restored (and an explanation given for the inconvenient bits.) You may recall the observation of one reader in the discussion of Swindle, the reader observing: If a […]
One of my first blog postings was on Briffa’s very first fudging (2011 update: the “Briffa bodge”) of a temperature reconstruction – his adjustment of the Tornetrask reconstruction – a reconstruction that is used in virtually every study. This was one of the first encounters with the Divergence Problem. Tornetrask MXD went down in the […]
I’ve plotted up a version of the series in the Wilson spaghetti graph, together with URLs and a script from which original data for most of the series in the Wilson spaghetti graph can be downloaded together with read scripts. Wilson used a couple of grey versions (Hegerl, Juckes) although there are online versions of […]
Here’s something amusing in the New Scientist article, which includes a defence of the Stick. Their jpg is compiled by one Robert Wilson of the University of Edinburgh, who includes the reconstruction from Juckes 2006. Has Juckes been accepted or doesn’t this matter any more? Like IPCC, Rob has failed to show 1960-1994 values of […]
I was planning a new post on the truncation of the inconvenient 20th century downturn in the Briffa 2001 graphic in the IPCC graphic, that I observed some time ago here. Since data truncation is in the news, I was going to update the graphic in this post to better show just how cynical the […]
There are a few other blogs that from time to time do detailed analyses of what people are doing, not dissimilar in format to what I do. Last year, in Apr 2006 shortly after publication, I observed here that the upper and lower confidence intervals of Hegerl et al crossed over. In Feb 2007, Tapio […]
One of the most important IPCC representations is the supposedly tremendous quality control of its review process. I’ve mentioned in passing on a number of occasions that, when I sought to obtain supporting data for then unpublished articles, IPCC threatened to expel me as a reviewer. I’ve had a few requests to recount my experience […]
Climate Audit 
New Scientist, Juckes and Rob Wilson
Here’s something amusing in the New Scientist article, which includes a defence of the Stick. Their jpg is compiled by one Robert Wilson of the University of Edinburgh, who includes the reconstruction from Juckes 2006. Has Juckes been accepted or doesn’t this matter any more? Like IPCC, Rob has failed to show 1960-1994 values of […]