Category Archives: Barton Committee

20 Wise Men Write Barton

One of the reasons for my recent focus on Thompson is that he was one of the 20 "wise" [my term] men (and women) who wrote here to the Barton Committee deeply concerned about your approach and expressed their "hope that as a community, we can help your committee shape public policy in the light […]

Science Editorial #2

It has been brought to my attention that Science has formal policies on data archiving. The author of the email, who requested confidentiality, argued that this disproved my statement: Having acknowledged that, the underlying issue is that Science does not seem to either have policies that require authors to archive data or administration practices that […]

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 […]

More on MBH98 Cross-Validation R2

I have previously discussed here and here Mann’s answer to the following question from the House Committee: "7 c. Did you calculate the R2 statistic for the temperature reconstruction, particularly for the 15th Century proxy record calculations and what were the results?" Mann stated: "My colleagues and I did not rely on this statistic in […]

Barton "Op Ed"

US Congressman Joe Barton expressed some thoughts here (link courtesy of Jerry Brennan).

Bradley's Data Archiving

Here is a discussion of two of Bradley’s answers to questions from the House Committee letter pertaining to federal grants and archiving.

Is Hughes in compliance with data archiving requirements?

Hughes’ letter to Barton says that NSF issued him an opinion that he was in compliance with all NSF and US government obligations regarding access to data. Why would NSF go out of its way to issue such an opinion letter? I wonder what due diligence that NSF did before issuing the opinion letter. Here […]

The Hill News on Barton

The Hill News, described as the newspaper "for and about Congress", says the following: It is decidedly odd to suggest that Barton, who as Energy Committee chairman is tasked with helping shape the nation’s energy policy, should not have any oversight of the science increasingly used to justify “¢’‚¬? indeed demand “¢’‚¬? a radical change […]

Answers to the House Committee on Cross-Validation Statistics

In a recent post, I showed that MBH had calculated cross-validation R2 statistics, but this information had been excluded from their summary of cross-validation statistics in their Supplementary Information here. We had surmised this in our original article, but had previously been unable to absolutely prove it. The House Committee requested information from M,B and […]

Title to MBH98 Source Code

It will take a while to go through the responses of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. I’ve taken a first look at the new source code and will commenting on it in due course. I have no information on responses from NSF and IPCC, other than what I read in the Nature interview with the Chairman […]