Tag Archives: Steig

Steig’s Bladeless “Hockey” Stick

In a recent RC post entitled “Ice Hockey” and a recent Nature article, Steig and coauthors have introduced a novel and very baroque “hockey stick”, one without a blade. A true Halloween of horrors: in addition to Gergis’ zombie hockey stick, the bladeless Hockey Stick of Sleepy Hollow is now at large. The appearance of […]

Steig’s “Hockey Stick”

I’m writing a response to Gavin Schmidt’s rant about Yamal, which I should finish by tomorrow. Schmidt’s rant does not refute anything in my Yamal post. Indeed, Schmidt barely touches on the actual content of my post. Most of his post has nothing to do with Yamal. In the present post, I’ll deal with the […]

AR5 Loves Steig et al 2009

Jeff Id has an excellent post on IPCC AR5 use of the highly flawed Steig et al 2009. Despite Steig’s efforts to block the publication of O’Donnell et al 2010, O2010 shows clearly that whatever is new in Steig et al 2009 is not only incorrect, but an artifact of flawed math and whatever is […]

Limits to “Justified Disingenuousness”

John Nielsen-Gammon has articulated a doctrine of what might be termed justified disingenuousness as applying to climate scientists acting as reviewers. I criticized this doctrine in yesterday’s post. In comments to that post, Nielsen-Gammon said that I made unrealistic assumptions about the academic world, that I was (in effect) too idealistic, perhaps even a pollyanna […]

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.

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 […]

Remember Gavin’s Taunts about Steig et al 2009?

On January 27, 2009, a few days after Steig et al 2009 was released to fawning international coverage, Gavin Schmidt at RC here claimed that the critical commentary on the paper had been “remarkably weak” and demanding that this “supposed demonstration of intellectual bankruptcy” get some media attention: All in all, the critical commentary about […]

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 […]

Rejected … by RC!

I have been rejected at RealClimate! My first rejection! I have not posted there in about two years although I have occasionally read some of their consensus defences when they were relevant to what I have been looking at. They have been running a Steig Corrigendum thread concurrent with ours and I have followed it […]