Tag Archives: ritson

More Tangled Webs

Here’s something amusing. Mann has written to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, arguing that we made a fundamental and obvious mistake in how we calculated AR1 coefficients for the North American tree ring network, which exaggerated the HS-ness of the simulated hockey sticks – a mistake that Ritson has now supposedly picked up and […]

Take a Ritalin, Dave

The Team have snarled back at Wegman here . They’ve posted up an August 16, 2006 letter from David Ritson to Waxman, accusing Wegman of not responding with a request for information that had been outstanding for almost 3 weeks (?!?) . Yes, you read it right. Jeez, I’ve been waiting almost three years for […]

Detrended in Amherst

Wahl et al [2006 ] fulminated as follows : The VS04 results have been interpreted to cast serious doubt on the MBH reconstruction. … However, these results are in large part dependent on a detrending step not used by MBH, which is physically inappropriate and statistically not required. The take-away message for the climate community […]

The Ritson Comment: An Update

In August 2005, the new editor-in-chief of GRL, Jay Famiglietti of UC, Irvine, took over control of our file after two comments, including one by Ammann (UCAR) and Wahl had been rejected by the previous editor. This is discussed here . He gave an interview to Environmental Science & Technology here in which he was […]

Reply to Ritson

A few weeks ago, I mentioned here that the new editor-in-chief of GRL, Jay Famiglietti, had removed James Saiers as our editor, had made remarks about our papers to Environmental Science & Technology that can be construed as critical, had pulled two rejected Comments out of the garbage can (including one that had been press […]

Our Reply to a Rejected Comment to GRL

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 […]