As CA readers, CRU, the Met Office and a couple of other UK institutions had more or less stonewalled David Holland’s FOI requests. One of Holland’s particular interests is one that is perhaps a little appropriate/inappropriate for Easter Sunday – Caspar and the resurrected Jesus paper. Holland had tried for some years to determine exactly […]
Roger Pielke Jr has written a gracious post , following up on Bishop Hill’s post and considering the issues as they pertain to science policy, and, in particular, the processes of peer review and due diligence, which have informed many of my posts. He refers to and reconsiders a post that I wrote for Prometheus […]
Reader Perry writes in reporting an interesting narrative of the Caspar Ammann affair at Bishop Hill’s blog here. IT is a detailed narrative written in a lively style of a story that’s been followed here for a few years and re-visited last week with the release of the Ammann SI. The article is very flattering […]
When Wahl and Ammann’s script first came out, I was able to immediately reconcile our results to theirs – see here. As Wegman later said: when using the same proxies as and the same methodology as MM, Wahl and Ammann essentially reproduce the MM curves. Thus, far from disproving the MM work, they reinforce the […]
The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy where a man shoots a barn thirty times then circles the bullet holes nearest each other after the fact calling that his target. It’s of particular concern in epidemiology. Folks, you are never going to see a better example of the Texas Sharpshooter work itself out in […]
We seem to be having occasional success in getting things archived. CSIRO was shamed into providing the data for their Drought Report and David Stockwell has now reported on this. Earlier this year, we reported a form of academic check kiting by Ammann and Wahl, where they had referred to Supplementary Information for key results, […]
I examined the “In Press” and “Accepted” citations in IPCC AR4 Second Draft Chapter 6 to verify whether Wahl and Ammann 200x had received unusual and special treatment. It definitely did; it’s surprising how much so. There was also a very interesting tendency for IPCC Authors to bend the rules in their own favor.
In a previous post, I’ve observed some oddities in connection with the dating of Wahl and Ammann 2007 and with Schneider’s obfuscation when asked to explain how an article supposedly accepted on March 1, 2006 could cite an article that had not even been submitted until August 2006. (BTW, I note that Journal of Climate […]
This is the title of a famous Sherlock Holmes story and not intended as a slight to any individual. Take a look at the Review Comments for AR4 Second Draft Chapter 6 online here. While I was reviewing these comments, I noticed that there are no reported comments on chapter 6 from Caspar Ammann, one […]
Last summer, on Aug 28, 2007, I wrote a post observing that Wahl and Ammann 2007, although being cited in IPCC AR4, had still not appeared in print. I think that it was then the only article cited in IPCC AR4 chapter 6 in that situation. In that post, I observed that it seemed anomalous […]
Climate Audit 