Search Results for: santer

Gergis “Significance”

Jean S observed in comments to another thread that he was unable to replicate the claimed “significant” correlation for many, if not, most of the 27 Gergis “significant” proxies. See his comments here  here Jean S had observed: Steve, Roman, or somebody 😉 , what am I doing wrong here? I tried to check the […]

Schmidt’s “Conspiracy Theory”

Schmidt’s recent post on Yamal advocated the following “conspiracy theory”: McIntyre got the erroneous idea that studies were being done, but were being suppressed if they showed something ‘inconvenient’. This is of course a classic conspiracy theory and one that can’t be easily disproved. Accusation: you did something and then hid it. Response: No I […]

Stocker’s Earmarks

In December, the WG1 TSU of the IPCC sent me a formal notice asking me to remove Climate Audit discussion of the IPCC Zero Draft. In this notice, they stated: It has come to our attention that several Chapters of the Zero Order Draft (ZOD) of WGI AR5 are being cited, quoted and discussed on […]

New Light on Jones’ Document Deletion Enterprise

David Holland, in a guest post at Bishop Hill, shows that Climategate 2.0 has provided more context on Phil Jones’ efforts to organize the deletion of documents.

Watch the Pea – AR5 (ZOD) Chapter 10

As CA readers are aware, key findings of Santer et al 2008 do not hold using updated data. Ross and I submitted a comment to IJC showing this. The comment was rejected twice, with one of the reviewers (as in the case of the comment on Steig et al) being a Santer coauthor (who was […]

A Somewhat Late Response to Schneider

(This post is by Ross.) Eight years ago, in October 2003, Stephen Schneider wrote email 0020.txt to Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense, cc’ing to Mann, Hegerl, Overpeck, Briffa, Hughes, MacCracken, Jones, Bradley, Santer, Thompson, Mosley-Thompson, Crowley, Trenberth, Osborn, Wigley and a couple others.  The email stated, in part, the following ([sic] wherever appropriate).  Hello all. Ah […]

Collated A1B Model Runs

The other day, Gavin Schmidt stated that the amplification factor over land for tropospheric trends to surface trends for GISS models was only 0.95. A reader reported that an amplification factor of 1.1 had been reported in an article by Pielke Sr et al, relying on a pers comm. Some readers expressed frustration over the […]

More Hypocrisy from the Team

Bishop Hill draws attention to the publication of Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society earlier this year (see here here here, Trenberth et al 2011 was not plagiarized. The review process for Trenberth was, shall we say, totally different than the review process […]

The Stone in Trenberth’s Shoe

Like most of us, I’ve been a bit taken aback by the ritual seppuku of young academic Wolfgang Wagner, formerly editor of Remote Sensing, for the temerity of casting a shadow across the path of climate capo Kevin Trenberth. It appears that Wagner’s self-immolation has only partly appeased Trenberth, who, like an Oriental despot, remains […]

Lindzen’s PNAS Reviews

Chip Knappenberg has published Lindzen’s review correspondence with PNAS at Rob Bradley’s blog here. Most CA readers will be interested in this and I urge you to read the post, taking care to consult the attachments. (I would have preferred that the post include some excerpts from the attachments.) The post focuses to a considerable […]