Here is a discussion of two of Bradley’s answers to questions from the House Committee letter pertaining to federal grants and archiving. Continue reading →
An interesting take on the controversy from the leading Swiss newspaper. Continue reading →
Some time ago, I posted up some information on data archiving policy of the U.S.Global Change Research Program (USGRCP) and its guidelines to various agencies. I’ve identified 4 other policy statements from other institutions, including the National Science Foundation, which pertain to present matters. Continue reading →
In 2002, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on the topic: The U.S. National Climate Change Assessment: Do the Climate Models Project a Useful Picture of Regional Climate? Statements are online here. Witnesses include Thomas Karl, Roger Pielke Sr. (who refers to these hearings at his new blog. )
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 are some thoughts. Continue reading →
A little relief from Mann source code (but don’t worry, I’m not finished with it.) In my post on IPCC 1990 arising out of the controversy about the WSJ editorial, I referred to the following quote from the Executive Summary to chapter 7 (p. 200), which stated (having the Younger Dryas in mind):
We conclude that despite great limitations in the quantity and quality of the available historical temperature data, the evidence points consistently to a real but irregular warming over the last century. A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase of greenhouse gases. [my emphasis]
I attempted to trace the basis for overturning this view in later IPCC reports to see whether and how the changing views were based on updated science. I follow the trail a bit further here. Continue reading →
Tim Lambert was quick to pounce on Ross McKitrick’s programming error in calculating cosine(latitude) in a paper not involving me, so it’s ironic to see Lambert’s apparent failure to understand Mann’s erroneous use of cosine(latitude) in his temperature PC calculations, even when brought to his attention. Ed Snack has had an interesting exchange with Tim Lambert at Lambert’s blog here – see around #142. I would certainly hope and expect that, when Lambert realizes that his pronouncements on this topic have been incorrect, he will promptly correct and apologize for his error and issue a prominent denunciation of Mann’s error fully equal in ferocity to his denunciation of McKitrick’s similar error. Continue reading →
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 in that very policy. Failure to look into the science would constitute an abnegation of that duty. So Barton is right on the core argument.
Continue reading →
Just for reference: here’s the code excerpt where Mann calculates the cross-validation R2 statistics and then writes it to file. You can see the original code at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL98/METHODS/multiproxy.f.{Update –
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/METHODS/multiproxy.f
] Search down using corrnhem or verif1,out. There is no "if" as to whether he calculated the cross-validation R2 statistic. Continue reading →
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 H about whether they calculated the R2 and other cross-validation statistics. It’s interesting to look at their responses with this information in mind. Continue reading →
Climate Audit 
Neue Zürcher Zeitung (Swiss) Coverage
An interesting take on the controversy from the leading Swiss newspaper. Continue reading →