Re-reading Climategate and AR4 Review Comments, I noticed an interesting discussion about handling the Law Dome O18 record – a series used in Mann and Jones (2003) and Jones and Mann (2004) with a very elevated MWP.
Update: Feb 14 2010: Dana Milbank of the Washington Post provides his perspective: (emphasis mine) As a scientific proposition, claiming that heavy snow in the mid-Atlantic debunks global warming theory is about as valid as claiming that the existence of John Edwards debunks the theory of evolution. In fact, warming theory suggests that you’d see […]
The U.S. EPA just released (Apr 17, 2009) “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” url together with a Technical Support Document url. In Canada and most countries, governments just implement these sorts of policies without the huge regulatory process that delays everything in […]
I would like to draw readers’ attention to an extremely interesting discussion of the Wegman Report and the IPCC at the Global Administrative Law Blog on Apr 29, 2008, considering some of the issues from the perspective of administrative law. The author is Euan Macdonald of the Institute for International Law and Justice of New […]
IPCC Review Editors have an extremely important function under IPCC procedures. In prior discussion of the Replies by WG1 Chapter Authors to Review Comments, we noted their unresponsiveness on issues that we were familiar with e.g. the deletion of the inconvenient post-1960 Briffa reconstruction results, the handling of the HS dispute. When the IPCC WG1 […]
David Holland has written in raising an excellent point about the failure of IPCC WG1 to release the Review Editor comments. In our examination of specific issues e.g. the Briffa truncation, the handling of trends, etc., the Author Responses (online through an earlier CA initiative) show that the IPCC authors often made unconvincing and tendentious […]
As an innocent bystander to the climate debates a couple of years ago, I presumed that IPCC would provide a clear exposition of how doubled CO2 actually leads to 2.5-3 deg C. The exposition might involve considerable detail on infra-red radiation since that’s relevant to the problem, but I presumed that they would provide a […]
Well, here is a small accomplishment that I think can reasonably be credited to climateaudit. As we approach the due date for the NOAA FOI responses, IPCC has now put the review comments online. Enjoy.
I recently received a copy of how IPCC authors answered the review comments, including their answers to the requirement of one reviewer that the deleted Briffa data be restored (and an explanation given for the inconvenient bits.) You may recall the observation of one reader in the discussion of Swindle, the reader observing: If a […]
IPCC has just written me saying that they will send me review comments on chapter 6 subject to the following restriction: As this additional form of distribution is being provided in conjunction with the review process, the compiled comments are not for re-distribution to others. Given that the review comments are supposedly in an “open […]
Climate Audit 
EPA Quality Guidelines: the NAS Panel and IPCC
The U.S. EPA just released (Apr 17, 2009) “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act” url together with a Technical Support Document url. In Canada and most countries, governments just implement these sorts of policies without the huge regulatory process that delays everything in […]