More reaction to the Barton letters

  • HangLeft:
    "it fits the pattern we've come to know and expect from the Republicans: when facts get in the way of their bankrupt ideology, they cover up those facts and intimidate the messenger."

  • Coturnix: "With all the misuse of science by the current Administration I still never expected the Lysenko-style persecution of scientists whose data do not support the party line. Yet, this day has come. The USA has its Lysenko, and his name is Joe Barton."

  • Will: "Barton is known for being a staunch opponent of the Kyoto Protocol and referring to climate change provisions as "odorous" measures that would be kept out of energy legislation."

  • William Connolley: "the TAR was quite cautious in its use of the MBH record (which was entirely appropriate, it being fairly new then). So attacking Mann (or, being more charitable, attacking MBH98) is pointless, from a scientific standpoint. But then, this isn't about science, its about $."

  • Kevin Vranes: "the letters are primarily meant to embarrass and harass and the hearings, if they ever happen, could be seen as an abuse of power."

  • Sylvia S Tognetti: "This is more Funk from the Swamp emanating from the Hill that arises from the Foggy Bottom, and is not worthy of a serious response."

  • back40: "the usual suspects are in full shriek mode claiming abuse of power and political motivations. It's not abuse, it's congress doing its job for a change."

My previous post also got some reactions:

  • Hans
    my post the start of an "ad hom and smear campaign". Oh, I think the
    ad-hom-and-smear campaign started long ago.

  • Steve Verdon:
    "Notice that Lambert is his usual dishonest self and not pointing out
    that environmental groups fund Real Climate." Yes, because it must
    cost like $100 per year to run the site.

Update: Steve McIntyre has his own roundup. He claims:

Many posters do not distinguish between the PC codes for tree ring which are on Mann's FTP site and the code for the rest of the calculation, which Mann has refused to provide. We are obviously aware of the code on the site, since we published an article discussing it and specifically cited the URL. I've made this distinction on several occasions in very specific terms, but people like Tim Lambert seem unable to fathom the distinction.

This is, of course, untrue. I have never said that Mann has released all of his code. He has, however, released the data, the algorithm, and some of the code. Perhaps McIntyre is unable to fathom the distinction between "code" and "algorithm".

McIntyre continues:

Also one more time, Wahl and Ammann have not replicated anything that we had not already done.

Wahl and Ammann don't seem to think so:

Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. ... Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded.


More like this

Chris Mooney reports on the latest attack on the hockey stick. Joe Barton, chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce has sent out a set of letters, supposedly "requesting information regarding global warming studies". However, if you look at the letters, you will find that the only study he is…
The discussion involving Judith Curry and The Hockey Stick Illusion has continued at Collide-a-Scape, with posts on the views of Judith Curry (Curry did admit to getting one of her ten points wrong, but not the other nine) and those of Gavin Schmidt. Steve McIntyre's comments in the second thread…
Joe Barton's Committee has released a report they commissioned on the hockey stick by Wegman, Scott and Said (WSS). The focus of the report is much narrower than the NRC report and the results are basically a subset of the NRC report. In particular, both reports find that "off-centre" method used…
The Hook reports: In papers sent to UVA April 23, [Virginia Attorney General] Cuccinelli's office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann's receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann-- now director…

I think Sylvia has it right - it's not worthy of a serious response, but when you do, make theater out of it.

Oh, and Tim, Hans calls everything ad hom. Ignore as appropriate.


"environmental groups fund Real Climate"

"We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. All of these facts have always been made clear to everyone who asked (see for instance:"
Which unfortunately I can't access with my freebie Science account.

By z of the kdlangettes (not verified) on 29 Jun 2005 #permalink

Okay, Barton is groping for the word "odious" but comes up with "odorous". I guess that's pretty close. Erren may have been home-schooled with too much dependence of phonics if he comes up with "ad hom and" smear. And Verdon doesn't show that he knows any better than Erren how to spell ad hominem, but he sure knows how to do it!

"it's not worthy of a serious response"

yeah, we tried our best (twice!), but with something as surreal as this, satire pretty much becomes irrelevant.

As an interesting aside, I tried posting a comment to Steve McIntyre's blog regarding his demands to Mann to release all of his source code. My gist was that there is no requirement, regardless of funding source, for researchers to release ancillary data, code, notes, etc. (Though many will choose to). All that is required is the data and methodology necessary to reproduce the results.

I also suggested that the Wahl and Ammann reconstruction would not have been possible if Mann was withholding any critical data or methodology. And that if he had any evidence that either party was engaging in fraud, whether via falsification or collusion he was obligated to present it. Otherwise

Unfortunately however, my comment never showed up. Apparently Mr. "Full Disclosure" has no interest in disclosing criticisms of his own work!

Comment on #5
Coop:"All that is required is the data and methodology necessary to reproduce the results"
That is the core of the problem: The methods Mann claims to have used does not give the results he has published. I think Mann should still present his code for evaluation.

By Larry Huldén (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink


Keep up the stellar efforts to expose hypocrites like Barton for who they are and what they are defending. Your web site is outstanding - its in my top five.

As for Hans Erren, he is nothing more than a contrarian blowhard over here in Holland who is incapable of publishing anything half-decent in a peer-reviewed journal. Sites like McIntyre's and the Idso's seem to be the appropriate depository for climate sceptics and others in the academic fringe. As Dano says, ignore him and his ilk.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

This is, of course, untrue. I have never said that Mann has released all of his code. He has, however, released the data, the algorithm, and some of the code. Perhaps McIntyre is unable to fathom the disticntion between "code" and "algorithm

Tim, has he ?

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

Reading the posts above, you lot really, really want to do business?

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink


just realised. Touche, but don't bitch over the feedback.

By Louis Hissink (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

"Wahl and Ammann don't seem to think so" -- perhaps that's why at least one of the papers mentioned in the press release you link to has been rejected through peer review ...

By Jo Calder (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

What's amazing about the sceptics (too kind a word for them, actually, I refer contrarian) is that they think that somehow all of the evidence for AGW somehow hinges on the Mann et al. reconstruction, while conveniently ignoring tousands of other studies. As an apt analogy, this is the same kind of ridiculous abuse of science as claiming there isn't an extinction crisis because the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker was recently rediscovered in the forested swamplands of Arkansas.

Ten years ago and the contras were claiming that there wasn't any evidence for AGW (in fact, GW at all), but they've now moved on. Currently, most of the contras don't dispute that the planet's surface is warming, but their next line of feeble defense is to downplay it, claiming its not an exceptional occurrence, and that its due to natural forcings anyway. As I have said in this thread before, in five or ten years they'll acknowledge the human fingerprint, but claim that it is too late to do anything about it, so that we'll just have to adapt (ensuring that prevention is kept well off the political agenda). Note that some of the contras (e.g. Pat Michaels) are now quietly accepting, at least in part, the human influence on GW, but they are saying that its at the lower end of the IPCC temperature range. Again, their aim is to ensure a business-as-usual scenario.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

This is not about a hockey stick. The point that is being missed in the noise is Chris Mooneys statement

"Indeed, it's a deeply chilling attack on scientists who, faced with such onerous and menacing requests, may well be intimidated in the future from even conducting research in hot button areas like global warming. "

This is the danger. The USA is going down the road of state approved research. How many letters has this guy sent to say scientists in black weapon programs where trillions of dollars have going missing. Has he asked for the NSA scientists to disclose their algorithms - no. The total money spent on GW research would probably not buy you one Abrams tank.

Senator Barton received 500 000 dollars from the oil companies and he is doing their work. The government is trying to scuttle research that could hurt corporate profits. Basically he is doing his masters bidding. Who's next is the question you should be asking - not debating a stupid hockey stick.

Will nutritionists that bag McDonalds be getting letters from Senators in the FDA? Will they have to disclose results and CVs if they find a corporation's food is bad. What about scientists in environmental science that research pollution from power plants and chemical factories - are they going to be getting letters. When will the new chief scientists of the USA, Macintye, McKitrick and Lysenko start doing an analysis of their work?

America already has a Gulag - to complete the process do they need a state approval process for research from corporate commissars?

Forget the hockey stick - this is an assault on free research and science.


Excellent post. I'd just like to reiterate Jim Norton's relevant post on RealClimate and say that the aim of the contras (the denial lobby) is to give the impression that the scientific basis for AGW hinges on just one or two studies. Thus, if they can downplay the findings of these few studies, and marginalize the scientists who performed the research, they will convince the public that there isn't anything to worry about. The media have usually focused on a few studies and has ignored a wealth of empirical research that bolsters the findings of the other research that is being attacked by the denialists.

The bottom line is that, amongst just about every national academy of science on Earth in every country, there is a general consensus that humans are influencing climate and that the effects of AGW have the potential to be very destructive on ecological systems and could impair the free flow of services that emerge from them. This will rebound on human society. Certainly there are a few scientific 'outliers' but most of these people are in the academic fringe and make little or no scientific contribution to the debate.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

re:Larry (#6)

The methods Mann used give the results he published only if you actually use his methods and data. If you change the methodology and discard data (as M&M have done) of course you can't reproduce anything. Lacking a basic understanding of trigonometry, statistics and science in general does not help matters.

I'm sure a five-year-old would be unable to reproduce Millikan's oil drop experiment as well. This does not invalidate the original research or mean the charge of an electron in unknowable.

Forgive me for repeating myself, if I have, but what specific piece of code has not been disclosed by Mann's group?

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

I posted this over on McIntyre's blog:

"Mr. McIntyre, you haven't addressed the issue of whether Barton's requests are legitimate. If you believe they are, one way you could move the process forward is to [voluntarily] post what your answers to questions 1-4 (shown on Chris Mooney's site) would be."

We'll see what happens, if anything.

Good 'un, Brian.



To McIntyre's credit, he responded to my suggestion:

He hasn't received federal money though, so the questions that would be ridiculously onerous (and potentially intimidating) to Mann et al. are no problem for him.

We need to pose the same question to other denialists with longer funding histories (assuming the denialists don't have a problem with Barton's approach towards Mann).

RE #15
This discussion would not have started if Mann (et al) had done as he (they) claimed in the article(s) from 1998 and 1999. Several recent checkings (McIntyre, Cubasch, von Storch, also some other) of the published method reveal that it is not possible replicate the published curve.
It looks like something fundamental is missing in what Mann has published and said in media.
Mann himself said that he will not publish the code used in the temperature reconstruction. I don't understand why.
I emphasize that the original code would be the best tool to evaluate the calculations and a proof of which data sets were used.
This discussion has no meaning without that code.

By Larry Huldén (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

As I have said, Barton's tactics and those of the contras is to pick away at minute details while ignoring the bigger picture. Those defending McIntyre on this thread and elsewhere are guilty of this.

As for McIntyre's personal involement in all of this, who cares if he receives any money from the fossil fuel lobby or not? The guy associates with wretched characters like McKitrick who do. He doesn't question their integrity. He may or may not have his own political and personal beliefs which are tied up in all of this. But the bottom line is that, and I reiterate, the empirical evidence for AGW is immense. Moreover, the study by Mann et al. and other proxies supporting the Mann et al. study are but one small piece of evidence supporting many hundreds of other studies. By focusing on this one small area of research, the contras are aiming to convince the public and policy makers that all of the empirical evidence for AGW hinges on the 'hockey stick'. This is both insidious and scientifically vacuous.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Jun 2005 #permalink

Given that McIntyre is at a Canadian University, he is not all that eligible to receive US grant money. Wonder what he may or may not have received from various Canadian funding sources.

WRT what Larry Hulden wrote, he might want to take a look at the error limits for all the reconstructions he quotes. Many of them agree with MBH 98 better than they do with say Esper They agree within the limits of error.

The most interesting question is raised by v. Storch with respect to climate sensitivity to forcing (ie how much would a doubling of CO2 or a .2% increase in the solar constant) affect the global temperature. Von Storch, et al. use a GCM to postdict temperature across the earth, and then constructs a global temperature record. They find that the method of MBH98 results in an underprediction of climate sensitivity. The implication is that things will be a lot worse if CO2 doubles then you would predict from extending MBH98 into the future.

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 01 Jul 2005 #permalink

Eli, McIntyre isn't at a University, Canadian or otherwise. He's a consultant in the mining industry.

They great tradegy of this whole sordid mess is that Mann's critics are free to engage in behavior that would be career-ending for any practicing research scientist. No risk of ending a non-existant career, after all.

This provides a clean avenue of attack for those with an anti-science agenda, one which I'm not sure there are effective counter-measures for. Responding to their nonsense gives it an air of undeserved legitmacy, whilst ignoring it brings shrill claims of fraud and cover-ups.

Sorry, I was thinking of McKitrick. Scott made it right, but the point remains.

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 02 Jul 2005 #permalink

McKittrick is at a Canadian University — the University of Guelph.

My alma mater. A huge and honking embarrassment - you can see why I didn't want to complete the correction.

"The great tragedy of this whole sordid mess is that Mann's critics are free to engage in behavior that would be career-ending for any practicing research scientist. No risk of ending a non-existant career, after all.
This provides a clean avenue of attack for those with an anti-science agenda ... "

I choose NOT to believe that you are saying that a career in climatology depends on banging the AGW drum, no matter what the evidence shows.

Coop, if you truly believe that M&M are the anti-science side of this, go to and start picking holes in their argumentation.
I came to this from outside and with no particular axe to grind. I have been looking at their site, and at, and at places like this.
My judgement so far is that in terms of presenting a disciplined, detailed scientific argument, M&M are streets ahead.

RE #15
I wonder why nobody can replicate Mann's calculations. Von Storch found many errors in Mann's data sets and he was not able to decide how to handle with it.
Considering the fact that Mann in addition has not disclosed his code it is not possible to compare independent results with Mann's results.
Because IPCC WG I report deals quite a lot with Mann's results we may expect Mann's data and methods to be the best so far used. That's why it is so important that all aspects of the data and calculations could be presented in public in one and the same site.

By Larry Huldén (not verified) on 03 Jul 2005 #permalink

Larry - How about you read this before saying that nobody can replicate Manns calculations.

"The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400-1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of climate proxy-data used in the reconstruction. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented to examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analysis via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analysis of principle component (PC) processing methods in question... "


Re: 30 -- but at least one of the papers mentioned in your link has been rejected: see here. Whatever the reason for rejection, it seems a little dangerous to advert to either paper as definitive.

Cheers, -- Jo

By Jo Calder (not verified) on 03 Jul 2005 #permalink

If Wahl&Amman have been able to evaluate Mann's data and code, then at least they know the code and data. They should provide an exact adress where it is possible to copy everything.
If they don't give that adress it seems as if they also want to hide both data and code.

By Larry Huldén (not verified) on 03 Jul 2005 #permalink


The URL has obviously got cut by the presentation of this page.

Go here

By Meyrick Kirby (not verified) on 04 Jul 2005 #permalink

Folks, replication is not duplication. As a matter of fact duplication of anything containing computer code is a bad thing. You duplicate coding errors, which, as sure as little green footballs, are always there. To replicate is to start with the same data and get the same results. That is what W&A did. Since their code is available you could duplicate it, or better yet write your own script and see what you get. THEN you start making changes to see the sensitivity of the results to various changes or to improve the result.

You do NOT need the original coding to replicate a result. You do need to know what the data input was and what some key outputs are.

In the case of MBH98 there are two separate issues. First is the appropriateness of the method and its proper application. Second is the choice of data inputs and their treatment. Keep them apart. Remember that the work was done about 8 years ago, so you get to improve it if there is new data but you don't get to criticize someone for using data that was not available in 1997.

Now there are several people who have been able to replicate the method, for example, W&A, Zorita, Huybers at MIT....

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 04 Jul 2005 #permalink

More important than replication or duplication is:
Mann has said that he will not disclose his code. That means that he does not want anybody to check up which data were used or what was wrong with his original published results. Why should Mann hide it?
There must have been serious problems and he knew it from the beginning because he gave the wrong information about the methods used.

Wahl & Amman did not do anything that McIntyre didn't before and still McIntyre doesn't know for sure which data and code Mann used.

I am once more emphasizing that the only solution is to disclose the code and data that were originally used in Manns calculations. His results is used as a symbol of the activities of IPCC.

It's quite clear that climate research cannot continue in this manner. The scientific community cannot accept to be expected only to trust a person on his word.

If it appears that Mann's study is a nonscientific construction, it will have far going political impacts on climate research.

By Larry Huldén (not verified) on 05 Jul 2005 #permalink

Larry, your theory falls flat on its face because Mann has published his data and methods and Wahl and Ammann were able to follow the methods and replicate the hockey stick. Maybe Mann's code has two errors that cancel out or something but if even if that is the case, it just doesn't matter.

If McKitrick's screw up with degrees and radians had not made a substantive difference to his results, I would not have made a fuss about it.

Larry, you are making a number of false statements. For example

  1. The DATA that was used is listed in the correction published in Nature. The original data listing had some errors (mostly files listed that were not used) was published as supplementary material to MBH98. They can also be found listed in .inf files with weightings in Mann's holocene ftp site and the data files are there also. The file names can be matched up with the listing in Nature. Your statement that "That means that he does not want anybody to check up which data were used" is false. If you repeat it, it becomes a lie.
  2. As to method, W&A replicated MBH98 using the data listing as given in Nature 04. Others have used the method of MBH98 for various reconstructions, including reconstructions of parts of MBH98 and validated the method. There is sufficient reason to believe that McIntyre and McKitrick combine animus with mathematical and climatological incompetence. Their inability to reproduce a result is not very interesting. And yes, that is an ad hominem argument, based on observation and fact.
  3. The code necessary to produce the PCs, and the eigenfunctions is available on the holocene site.
By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 05 Jul 2005 #permalink

Re: 38 and McIntyre and McKitrick combine animus with mathematical and climatological incompetence. Well, that's interesting because the replications performed by W&A confirms the prior replication by McIntyre to 10 decimal places. See here for details. If McK is incompetent, W&A must also be, and in exactly the same way. Incidentally, if one wishes to maintain that MBH is replicable on the published record, one has a large number of questions to answer -- see the above link. It also details what code has been made available to date, the accuracy of replication and what is missing. Even if you suspect M&M of ill-will, the questions listed there must surely give a little pause for thought.

By Jo Calder (not verified) on 05 Jul 2005 #permalink

Ah, you mean the Wahl and Ammann who say

In Summary, it can be clearly stated that none of the warm 15th century reconstructions turn out to be statistically and climatologically meaningful. The centering issue raised by McIntyre and McKitrick in GRL (2005a), if approached properly (i.e. using full standardization of individual records), is influencing the reconstruction in a minor way and is in fact confirming the robustness of the MBH reconstruction within its own framework.

The warm 15th century reconstructions are, of course McKitrick and McIntyres'.

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 05 Jul 2005 #permalink

We need Mann's code. From that code we should see what data Mann actually used. It is not enough to say that all his data has been published because something is still in error, methods or data, sorry.
Nobody has been able to replicate Mann's method. It is quite clear that he is hiding something.
Why not once and for all publish everything in one site so this discussion could be finished?
As long as he is not exactly showing how he performed his calculations and exactly which data he used, there is no reason to rely on the climate reconstruction used by IPCC.
I think that Mann tries to escape the basic questions.

By Larry Huldén (not verified) on 06 Jul 2005 #permalink

Larry, the information you say you require has been available for quite some time at Mann's ftp site. Mann's code for doing the pc analysis is there, so are the lists of data files used, the weighting of each file and the data files. Period. You are either pushing at an open door, lying or too lazy to see for yourself.

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 06 Jul 2005 #permalink

And, secondly Eli, what is Larry going to do with the code? What about other amateurs? How are they going to screw it up and blame others for not being forthcoming, and then getting huffy when they're told to GFY?


Ah, but when Larry et al say "code" they mean the secret decoder ring that all supporters of AGW are issued by ZOG.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 06 Jul 2005 #permalink

What is clear from the selection of recipients of Barton's request is that this isn't about getting to the truth - or best available knowledge - on AGW. Barton could presumably make a request to the NAS to provide an assessment of the current state of the Science (much like the White House request to the NAS of a few years ago) and perhaps even ask for an assessment of the validity of specific scientific papers, but of course this would mean asking the opinions of Mann's peers - ie Scientists currently or very recently working within and at the top of relevant fields. Given that these are people whose work underpins the widely held conclusion that AGW is real such a request would not provide anything a denialist could use to any political effect.
Let's hope Professor Mann has the fortitude and eloquence to defend his work and his reputation especially if this is a prelude to being called to testify before a Star Chamber style committee.

Only now I realize my mistake.
I didn't know that this site was completely for amateurs !
I am sorry for disturbing you.

Larry Huldén
Finnish Museum of Natural History

By Larry Huldén (not verified) on 06 Jul 2005 #permalink


I still did not get the answer - what code? I will let the other go if you like however I am interested in what code you want.

I mean if you want the code then you must also want the compiler that MBH used complete with version number. Also you will need the type of PC or workstation and operating system with version so that you can replicate the conditions exactly. If you are going to nitpick to the degree that you are doing then you will have to conform to the same standards.

Also you will then have to pull apart the code line by line. It probably will not have comments, mine does not have much, and every programmer codes differently so would you get him on logic problems or neatness of code or what???

Dr Mann has supplied all the information necessary for a peer in his field to review and/or replicate the study. END OF STORY

Repeat after me - The MBH study is an interesting study that places recent warming in a historical context. It it not the centre or the heart of the IPCC 01 report that mentions it, nor is the whole evidence for the the AGW hypothesis.

Ender, the FUDbot's talking points have been shown to be unsupportable, so he's gone now.



If Mr. Rabett's constant drumbeat is correct, and that all of the code has been made available, then the appearance of cherry-picking the BCP series to show a hockey stick, WAS DEMONSTRATED in MM05 with reproduced valid algorithms and code fragments of MBH. This also means the red-noise tendency towards a preferential hockey stick result, WAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED in MM05 with reproduced valid algorithms and code fragments of MBH. So we have a peer-reviewed and GCR'05 published MM05, that puts forth those two (among other) significant criticisms of MBH'98 and '99 - vs. A&W's apparently rejected paper validating MBH'98 and '99? NOTE: GCR and their peer-reviewers clearly knew how hot MM05 was -- yet it still was published! Does this mean by peer-review publishing standards previously applied to reject M&M's critique of MBH'98 and '99, that the A&M validation paper should be ignored?

One also wonders what code Dr. Mann refuses to be "intimidated" into releasing, when according to Mr. Rabett, it's all been released?


Dano - is "GFY" a term from one of your science degrees? Your posts here and various sites have always lacked a convincing understanding of Physics and Mathematics - indicates those aren't the 2 degrees (or 2 minors) you hold. And your apparent lack of understanding of the CO2 an H20 cycles, stretches credibility on an earth science degree -- and yet you drew a pay-check from meteorology at one time? And your propensity to insult and regurgitate the AGW side, rather than engage in reasoned scientific comment and debate ... just how old are these degrees you have; were you a university flower child of the late 60s or early 70s?

By John McCall (not verified) on 28 Jul 2005 #permalink

Correction: to "GCR" ref's
"GRL'05 published MM05"

"NOTE: GRL and their peer-reviewers"

By John McCall (not verified) on 28 Jul 2005 #permalink

I would like to retract and apologize for my note to Dano in post 51. His claim of 2 science degrees (and/or minors), and a meteorology paycheck in his past should be accepted and commended on their face.

I still have problems with obviously reflexive rhetoric and especially such insults as "GFY", in other threads I'm now reviewing -- but his scientific background is significantly and commendably greater that the average AGW follower, and should be respected. Please accept my apology.

By John McCall (not verified) on 28 Jul 2005 #permalink

John Mc, we all post things that we later regret. however I have to say that if I came to this thread entirely neutral on the issue of AGW your tone in a number of your posts would have inclined me to the opposite side of the argument.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 29 Jul 2005 #permalink

No problem John Mc. I'm certainly not perfect.

On this particular topic [character assasination of a climate scientist team], I am particularly interested in the framing issues and how this plays out in society, so my approach is not geared toward Enlightenment Principles. Had your approach been one of seeming curiosity rather than of apparent certitude and promulgation of talking points, I'd have used a different tactic.

I'm currently quite interested in the general talking points and especially the organization of this latest astroturf spam campaign.

It is, IMHO, perfectly OK to tell climateaudit astroturfers and their mendacious red herrings to GFY than it is to waste one's time debating the merits of non-amateurs' conclusions with them; besides the fact denialists have no hypotheses and empirical findings of their own, if'n they can't take the heat, stay out of th' kitchen. They should be prepared to understand the effects of their actions, and if they aren't, they haven't thought through the campaign well enough because I'm just modifying their same tactics.



re: #7
Jeff Harvey Says:

As for Hans Erren, he is nothing more than a contrarian blowhard over here in Holland who is incapable of publishing anything half-decent in a peer-reviewed journal.

Contrary to Mr Harvey I am not paid to publish in Peer reviewed Journals but have to do it in my own spare time. If Mr Harvey would have checked he would have known that my only submission to a peer reviewed journal (E&E) was as coauthor of a letter criticising Mr Jelbring for his paper where he claims that the greenhouse effect is caused by gravity. So much for a contrarian blowhard.

Peter Dietze and Hans Erren, The Greenhouse effect should not be redefined, Energy and Environment Vol.14, No 6, pp. 921-922, December 2003

And contrary to Mr Harvey the entomologist, I am a geophysicist.

By Hans Erren (not verified) on 24 Aug 2005 #permalink