Category Archives: NAS Panel

News and views on the NAS Panel 2006 chaired by Gerald North

Nature Again

We took another try at Nature corrspondence. In their news report on the Mann graph discussed here , they stated: In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. They published a whining letter about the NAS panel and news conference by Mann et al, where they […]

Gerry North Presentation on NAS Report

North has a Texas A&M Seminar presentation here (deleted available here) . North is a nice and decent guy but this is a frustrating presentation in a lot of ways. At minute 55 or so, he describes panel operating procedure by saying that they “didn’t do any research”, that they just “took a look at […]

Take a Ritalin, Dave

The Team have snarled back at Wegman here . They’ve posted up an August 16, 2006 letter from David Ritson to Waxman, accusing Wegman of not responding with a request for information that had been outstanding for almost 3 weeks (?!?) . Yes, you read it right. Jeez, I’ve been waiting almost three years for […]

National Post Today

We have an op ed in the National Post today about the Wegman Report. In addition, Terence Corcoran has a long article about a recent hatchet job published by the Globe and Mail about Tim Ball from a writer named Charles Montgomery. I had to laugh out loud at the following comments by Corcoran about […]

Rejected Nature Correspondence

Last week, Mann et al published a letter in the Nature Correspondence section saying that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion", disucssed here. The Mann et al letter is absurd and Ross and I decided […]

It's Hard to Imagine…

As you all recall, the NAS panel let MBH off rather lightly in respect to disclosure and the House Energy and Commerce Committee couldn’t be bothered. So all in all, MBH dodged a bullet and you’d think that they’d have been wise enough to leave well enough alone. But no. In today’s Nature, Mann, Bradley […]

Thoughts on Alpine Glacier Stratigraphy

Hormes et al 2001 is noted up in passing by the NAS panel, but is given short shrift relative to Thompson. It is not mentioned at all in the IPCC 4AR second draft. This article is one of the underpinnings for the view that there have been 8 warm intervals in the Alps during the […]

What is the evidence against warmer MWP?

Lee has criticized me for not fully canvassing the supposedly manifold lines of evidence marshalled by the NAS panel against a warmer MWP. So I’ve done a little exercise to summarize the evidence AGAINST the MWP being warmer than mid-20th century, disaggregating what I believe to be the salient information from the spaghetti studies. The […]

Some Links to Pielke Jr

Roger Pielke has a few threads recently dealing with the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings – today there’s an op ed by von Storch and Zorita. A few days ago, he posted his own report and then posted up my response letter, both of which have attracted a few comments. I agree with both […]

Data Request to NAS

I’ve set up a new category at right entitled "Archiving" which cross-classifies many of the posts on data archiving and requests. A review from this time last year is here . Since then, I’ve had correspondence with Moberg and Nature, which has resulted in winkling out the other Moberg series (which I’ve yet to process); […]