Mann has just(July 2005) archived a fortran program at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL98/METHODS/multiproxy.f. {Update: see here]
Here are my first thoughts on this. Continue reading →
At Steve’s request, I’ve turned off the threaded comments and reinstated the “numbered comments”. This means that if comments are held up for moderation or deleted, references to comment numbers will go astray.
I’m also experimenting with a new plug-in to enable commenters to preview their comments prior to submission. This should help all of us who struggle with bad speling, bad html, bad paragraphing ((c) Steve McIntyre 2005) and just bad language which on second thought, you’d like to change.
If anyone has further suggestions on weblog modifications then please add comments to this thread only.
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 of IPCC.
Update (Wed.) : Just to clarify, the new source code referred to above is archived at ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/MANNETAL98/METHODS/multiproxy.f. Mann’s arguments about title to source code discussed below are presumably an attempt to justify his withholding this source code up to now, rather than for withholding this program from the House Committee (which he has not done). That is not to say that there are not issues pertaining to exactly what he has now disclosed, but that’s another story. On the issue of source code, Mann has taken a remarkably legalistic point of view that it is his personal property, notwithstanding its financing by NSF. I’ll discuss here an interesting legal issue about whether the source code belongs instead to the University of Virginia or University of Massachusetts. I’ll also discuss Mann’s surprisingly technical argument in the context of senior U.S. federal government policy on archiving. If Mann’s legalistic position is correct under present NSF policy, then I suspect that this will surprise many policy-makers and certainly suggest the need for a reiew of NSF policies and procedures, either in the form of more forceful contract negotiation and administration by NSF or a change in legal tools or contractual language available to NSF. Continue reading →
4 Comments have been submitted to GRL to date on McIntyre and McKitrick [2005]. We reported previously that the Wahl and Ammann comment was rejected (although this has not been acknowledged at the UCAR website.) A second comment has now been rejected. I think that there is a good chance that the other two Comments will be published together with our Replies. In our opinion, none of the criticisms have any bearing on our findings; in the two cases under consideration, we think that interesting issues were raised and that the comment and response will illuminate matters.
When Mann and others talk of supposed refutations of our findings as being in review, readers should bear in mind that the supposed refutations may not actually be refutations and may never see the light of day. In this case, the rejection of the Comment means that readers would not get to see our Reply. I think that our Reply may be of interest to readers so I’ve posted it up below. Continue reading →
There have been posted up at realclimate here. I’ll look at them today. “Public access” to Mann’s FTP site includes blocking: I (and my neighbors on my street who use the same internet server) continue to be blocked from access to Mann’s FTP site and I’ll have to go to another IP address to look at the FTP URLs to see if there’s anything new.
Letters were sent to Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Pachauri and NSF.
Responses: Mann, Bradley, Hughes
Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Executive Publisher of Science, has written Rep. Barton objecting to the letters to Mann, Bradley and Hughes. The press release is here and the letter is online here. now Continue reading →
The webcast of the April 6, 2005 presentations by Bradley, Crowley and Ammann is here. There’s lots that could be said about this presentation. I can only pick off a few points here. Continue reading →
Here is a guest report from Scott Shipley of George Mason University on the von Storch seminar at Boulder. Continue reading →
In a previous post, I discussed, in general terms, the issue of the conflict of interest between being an IPCC reviewer and being an active protagonist in the field. Here I illustrate the problems with specific reference to MBH98, arguing that the running text of IPCC TAR made misleading claims about the MBH98 hockey stick and that the underlying conflict of interest appears to have contributed to the making of these misleading claims. This example is obviously highly relevant to the current controversy. Continue reading →
We have started getting a barrage of automated hits and spam comments from online poker sites – a pulse from a different site and IP address every day. It started about 3 weeks ago. Our spam filter seems to be working fine with respect to spam posting, but we don’t know how to block the hits themselves, which screw up recent hit statistics. Otherwise we are unaware of any other impact. If anyone has any bright ideas, we’d appreciate them.
Climate Audit 
AAAS Letter
Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Executive Publisher of Science, has written Rep. Barton objecting to the letters to Mann, Bradley and Hughes. The press release is here and the letter is online here. now Continue reading →