Tag Archives: o’donnell

N-G: “Reviewers may need to be disingenuous”

John Nielsen-Gammon writes as follows in a comment in the preceding post: If you are a reviewer and wish to remain confidential while remaining engaged in scientific discourse, it is necessary for you to pretend to not be a reviewer. Scientists expect this and know that reviewers may need to be disingenuous when talking publicly […]

Spectator on Steig v O’Donnell

The Steig-O’Donnell story is featured in this week’s Spectator in the UK. Authors are Nic Lewis, a coauthor of O’Donnell et al 2010, and Matt Ridley.

A Two-Way Street

Reader Jan at Lucia’s makes the following sensible comment – one that has particular irony given Gavin Schmidt’s umbrage against Fred Pearce the day after Steig’s Feb 1 post that precipitated the present controversy: Jan writes (Comment#69196) February 11th, 2011 at 2:47 pm : I might suggest another mistake. It appeared that after the release […]

Coffin, meet nail.

For those who are not mathematically inclined and did not entirely follow the discussion about Eric’s reconstruction in the previous post, well, a picture is worth a thousand words. This is what happens to Eric’s reconstruction when you: Top row:  Add the designated trends to the Peninsula stations Second row:  Remove the designated trends from […]

O’Donnell et al 2010 Refutes Steig et al 2009,

Do some of you remember Steig et al 2009, a pre-Climategate Nature cover story? Like so many Team efforts, it applied a little-known statistical method, the properties of which were poorly known, to supposedly derive an important empirical result. In the case of Steig et al 2009, the key empirical claim was that strong Antarctic […]