[Riverwind]

wyly, on Oct 23 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

I've a PhD friend who does biological/pollution research for the government, he gets paid regardless what his research is on, his salary is fixed. None of the grant funding he attains is for his personal income.

Government departments compete for funding even if individual employees have a fixed salary. Same is true for independent agencies that rely on sub-contracts from the government.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 23 October 2009 - 10:44 AM

[Riverwind]

myata, on Oct 23 2009, 08:31 AM, said:

Short of being able to verify it myself, it won't be wrong, statistically, to go with (much, much, much) more likely possibility that the consensus of experts in the subject

Part of the problem is you are letting the spin doctors and political activists tell you what the alleged consensus is.

Here is a survey that tried to quantify what scientists actually believed:
http://www.climatesc...s/pdf/Brown.pdf

Quote

1. The largest group of respondents (45-50%) concur with the IPCC perspective as given in the
2007 Report.
2. A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of
the threat from human additions of CO2.
3. A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of
human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.
4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the
atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in
recent observed global average warming.

I don't call 60-70% support for the AGW catastrophe meme to be an overwhelming concensus. If 20% of the scientists in the field think that the IPCC is exagerrating then we all should want to hear why they think this.

[normanchateau]

Riverwind, on Oct 23 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

They work for the government or independent agencies and get funding for various government sponsered projects rather than from NSERC.

Almost all successful Canadian scientists working at universities are NSERC-funded or CIHR-funded. These are highly competitive grants. You must be talking about noncompetitive government contract grants which are subject to the whims of politicians.

[Riverwind]

normanchateau, on Oct 23 2009, 11:16 AM, said:

Almost all successful Canadian scientists working at universities are NSERC-funded or CIHR-funded. These are highly competitive grants. You must be talking about noncompetitive government contract grants which are subject to the whims of politicians.

Does not change the fact that there is money to be made chasing these funding sources and a lot of university professors try to get in on the action.

You also have not provided any evidence that scientists are paragons of virtue that would ignore self interest when providing anonymous reviews.

You have also not addressed the fact that journals are biased towards climate porn because that is what the media likes.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 23 October 2009 - 11:14 AM

[myata]

Riverwind, on Oct 23 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

You completely avoiding the question. I asked how can systematic problems be identified and corrected as long as people like insist that scientists are infallible and that anyone who questions them must be wrong? Simply repeating that you have unquestioning faith the scientists and their institutions does not address the issue.

They certainly cannot be identified by people with no knowledge or qualifications in the subject area.

[Riverwind]

myata, on Oct 23 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

They certainly cannot be identified by people with no knowledge or qualifications in the subject area.

SteveMc and RossMc clearly have the qualifications when it comes to statistical analysis yet you ignore what they have to say. Artificially defining the 'subject area' to only include the people who are already members of the old boys club ensures that it will be impossible to identify and correct problems caused by the bias of the old boys club.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 23 October 2009 - 11:17 AM

[normanchateau]

Riverwind, on Oct 23 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

Does not change the fact that there is money to be made chasing these funding sources and a lot of university professors try to get in on the action.

You must not understand how NSERC and CIHR work. These Canadian federal agencies strictly prohibit the funds from going to the university professors who receive them. They are used for salaries of employees and for research-related supplies and expenses.

US federal granting agencies differ in that university professors can supplement their incomes with their grants. Canadian federal granting have never done so...precisely to prevent the potential conflict of interest which you describe above.

[myata]

Riverwind, on Oct 23 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

SteveMc and RossMc clearly have the qualifications when it comes to statistical analysis yet you ignore what they have to say. Artificially defining the 'subject area' to only include the people who are already members of the old boys club ensures that it will be impossible to identify and correct problems caused by the bias of the old boys club.

That "club" though includes thousands of qualified scientists from all around the world. Is there a global conspiracy to trump good quality research, with not one of fellow scientists who could see it, speaking up? Or is the research itself not up to par, professionally?
Here's what somebody who isn't yet qualified to verify it for themselves could do:
1) Pick an opinion based on some unrelated to science quality (and optionally, dispute it to death in a general Web forum).
2) Use consensus expert option as guidline (based on statitics of likelihood of x,000 qualified scientist being wrong vs a few "dissenters", mostly from either unrelated, or only distantly related fields).
3) Acquire expertise themselves, and make a qualified judgement (and share it with fellow researchers, if necessary).

General Web forum as means to advance science only appears in the Strategy #1, and it is also the one that will never produce any contributions to science, because it's really nothing but a personal preference. And there can't be any (scientific) point in discussing our personal preferences (other than in psychology).

[Argus]

Riverwind, on Oct 23 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

Here is a tale which provides a concrete example of how the journals are baised towards pro-alarmist papers.
http://bishophill.sq...esus-paper.html

Most enlightening. Not surprising, but enlightening. I'm sure the True Believers will dismiss it anyway, though.

[Moonbox]

myata, on Oct 23 2009, 12:31 PM, said:

They certainly cannot be identified by people with no knowledge or qualifications in the subject area.

Most people have some knowledge in the subject area. NONE of the scientists have comprehensive knowledge of the Earth or it's climate. Climate science is broken up into so many disciplines that putting it altogether is in itself a crazily difficult task.

As for people who criticize it, among them are plenty of PhD's and even Nobel Prize winners. Their questions go unanswered, however, and they are marginalized as a result.

[waldo]

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Are you actually saying that McIntyre and McKitrick believe AGW is occurring - that they've stated/written as such? Are you actually saying that McIntyre's climateaudit blog is not a go-to source for AGW skeptics... how many times have you linked to it within this very thread? Are you actually saying that McIntyre presents an unbiased position... that's it's an absolute freaking coincidence that that he only investigates pro-global warming claims? As I don't frequent his blog, would you mind highlighting areas within it where McIntyre actually states his position on AGW... that should be easy for you given your previous statements - thanks in advance.

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Yep. And so do all of the skeptics that I would link to. The fact that you do not know this demonstrates that you know nothing about the topic and all you are doing is regurgitating alarmist propaganda

Noted: your reply fails to provide any linked-to/supporting information validating your claims that both McIntyre and McKitrick believe AGW is occurring. Nor have you provided any linked-to/supporting information to advise what McIntyre’s AGW position is. Nor have you provided any linked-to/supporting information to suggest, as you stated, that “McIntyre and McKitrick have said repeatedly that they do not believe their analysis denounces AGW”

Essentially… you’ve just said nothing – other than to throw out a typical skeptics accusatory charge of, as you state, “regurgitating alarmist propaganda”.

Riverwind, on Oct 21 2009, 07:55 AM, said:

Dishonest and untrustworthy scientists can still be right. No where did I say I believe that the problems with the hockey stick mean that AGW must be false. All I have said that the problems mean the AGW scientists cannot be trusted and we cannot take their word.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

You've not shown a single instance of dishonest scientists... do identified problems in methodology indicate untrustworthy scientists? Do you actually understand... recognize... appreciate... scientific methodology?

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Mann and company have repeately misrepresented their work and ignored legimate criticisms. They constantly create strawmen which claim to "rebutt" the claims but do nothing of the sort. Unfortunately, their deceptions are enough to satisfy the AGW alarmists like yourself who do not know enough to understand their deceptions.

Again, you purposely ignore the original caveats and stated uncertainties attached to MBH98/99… you ignore/distort the enhancements to data & methodology within MBH2008. Unless you’re a working scientist in the “thick of it”, I’d suggest your authority to beak-off about the understanding of others is limited to your ability to parse – and understand - blog supplied information… I don’t believe I’ve yet to see you post anything that originates outside of a “skeptics” blog… I believe, to-date, I have not linked to a single blog… I believe I linked once to Mann’s Penn State website for a pdf document reply he archived there. Essentially, your knowledge base lies within the privy of what’s provided via your favourite “skeptic” blogs… and yet, you self proclaim as a studied expert and call down others that don’t agree with you. You hardly speak from a position of subject authority… you simply regurgitate “skeptic” blog provided misinformation/spin.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

Since you asked… a few… of those studies that corroborate the original MBH98/99 reconstruction – studies that don’t completely rely on your stated proxy or MBH statistical method concerns. Your reference to 1000 years is a subjective criteria with disputed relevance in the overall debate... although some of the studies mentioned below meet that criteria point.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

- Wahl and Amman – a study that factored the centered PC analysis concern raised by Wegman, additionally removing one of the less well replicated tree ring series.

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Bogus methods. Reconstructions have no statistical significance.

No. Methods have endured scrutiny and… the reconstructions are… the reconstructions. Perhaps you could qualify your regurgitation – just a tad.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

- Rutherford – a study that completely eliminated the PC analysis step and effectively removed all statistically relevant tree-ring information.

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Does nothing of the sort. Simply repeats Mann's claims which were previously debunked.

No. One of the results from the Rutherford study validates the MBH98 reconstruction simply by using individual proxies within MBH98 rather than the raised Wegman principal component concern you parroted and previously ranted on. Additionally, since the MBH98 principal component analysis step was used to encapsulate all of the statistically relevant tree ring information, eliminating it, per this Rutherford study, removes those patterns and their influence on the final reconstruction. From the Rutherford study:

Quote

The close reproducibility of the MBH98 reconstruction based on both (1) the use of an independent CFR method and (2) the use of the individual proxies used by MBH98 rather than the Multiproxy/PC representation used by MBH98, discredits the arguments put forth by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) in support of their putative “correction” to the MBH98 reconstruction.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

- Oerlemans – a study that reconstructed global temperatures from glaciers… entirely independent from paleoclimate proxy data used by MBH

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Only goes back to 1600.

Oerlemans’ reconstruction of global temperatures relies solely on 169 separate glacier proxy data sets… and essentially replicates the MBH results. Care to provide your own interpretation to account for the Oerlemans’ reconstruction?

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

- Osborn and Briffa – a study that relies on proxy data related to tree-ring chronology, fossil shells and ice-core records and utilizes a very straightforward analysis that avoids the technical aspects of statistical calibration/methodology.

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Reuses all of the garbage proxies used in Mann.

No. The Osborn and Briffa study is exactly as I state… however, your statement that the MBH98/99 proxies are “garbage” deserves an additional correction. When you originally challenged MBH98/99 via your Wegman diversion, I provided you a direct MBH rebuttal to the claims made by McIntyre and McKitrick; as follows:

waldo, on Oct 19 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Yes... if you're going to reference dated, recirculated and already dispatched aspects of the AGW debate... it is getting ridiculous. As learned as you claim to be - perhaps - you might attempt to be reasonably topical.

Way back... when it actually came out... Mann, Bradley and Hughes responded directly to the McIntyre and McKitrick "audit"

A more lengthy/detailed response was also submitted to the journal Nature Your “garbage proxies” reference needs to be changed to one that highlights the selective McIntyre and McKitrick censoring of MBH data by completely eliminating it or substituting other data for it… or to one that highlights the technical problems in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology in attempting to recreate the MBH reconstruction.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

- Henry N. Pollack, Shaopeng Huang and Po-Yu Shen – a study that generated a global temperature reconstruction based on underground temperature measurements from over 350 bore holes in Australia, North America, Central Europe and Southern Africa.

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Boleholes are dubious proxies.

No. Accepting that annual or decade resolution isn’t available via the geophysical methods used to generate bore hole temperature reconstructions, relying on the available century-scale trend in temperatures over the last several centuries, this study recreates a reconstruction as seen within MBH.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

- Kaufman – a study that relied upon proxy data related to sediments from Arctic lakes, previously published data from glacial ice and tree rings calibrated against instrumental temperature records.

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Used key proxies 'upside down'. Cherry picked proxies that provide desired response.

Again, it's you and the upside down Tijander proxy… one of 23 proxies used… had been truncated to AD1800 to negate affect; however, more significantly, re-worked with the appropriate orientation with full results supplied. You’ll need to corroborate your statement about cherry picking proxies… waiting.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

MBH2008 – a study with significantly expanded proxy data sets (minus any reliance on tree rings) and an updated methodology

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

A completely bogus study that depends entirely on 2 proxies - one of which is bristlecones and the other was used upside down.

Wow – you actually can summarize… usually you just drop a link to your go-to deniers blog... like this following gem… that I previously responded to by providing you the actual PNAS published response from MBH. In any case, it shows you know little of MBH2008 since positive results are exhibited whether tree-ring data is utilized or not (as MBH state, “Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats”). Additionally, the Tiljander sediment proxies can be omitted to obtain the same results – notwithstanding MBH have rebuked the claim they were used “upside down”… also, you error as MBH 2008 also includes data from coral reef skeletons, cores from glaciers and ice sheets, other sea floor sediments and stalagmites and stalagtites.

Riverwind, on Oct 19 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

Here is a link that describes why Mann 2008 is complete junk too: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7411

waldo, on Oct 20 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

And Mann, Bradley and Hughes responded to the original … responded to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Quote

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

McIntyre and McKitrick raise no valid issues regarding our paper. We specifically discussed divergence of “composite plus scale” (CPS) and “error-in-variables” (EIV) reconstructions before A.D. 1000 [ref. 2 and supporting information (SI) therein] and demonstrated (in the SI) that the EIV reconstruction is the more reliable where they diverge. The method of uncertainty estimation (use of calibration/validation residuals) is conventional (3, 4) and was described explicitly in ref. 2 (also in ref. 5), and Matlab code is available at www.meteo.psu.edu/∼mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/code/codeveri/calc_error.m.

McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that the common procedure (6) of screening proxy data (used in some of our reconstructions) generates “hockey sticks” is unsupported in peer-reviewed literature and reflects unfamiliarity with the concept of screening regression/validation.

As clearly explained in ref. 2, proxies incorporating instrumental information were eliminated for validation and thus did not enter into skill assessment.

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

Finally, McIntyre and McKitrick misrepresent both the National Research Council report and the issues in that report that we claimed to address (see abstract in ref. 2). They ignore subsequent findings (4) concerning “strip bark” records and fail to note that we required significance of both reduction of error and coefficient of efficiency statistics relative to a standard red noise hypothesis to define a skillful reconstruction. In summary, their criticisms have no merit.

waldo, on Oct 22 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

From recall, you’ve used religious, criminal, zealot, incompetent, dishonest, and untrustworthy phrasings to characterize the “client science community”. Clearly you have personalized this beyond a straightforward layman’s attachment to interpreting the science. You clearly don’t draw from strength to question the confidence and objectivity of the “client science community”. You most clearly don’t interpret the Wegman Report in an appropriate perspective… you attach a disproportionate significance to the report, while purposely ignoring that others have genuinely considered it and taken it to heart with additional/revised studies. You’ll need to better articulate how that report speaks to, as you state, a lack of “confidence in their ability to assess science objectively”… otherwise, it’s just you adding to your long and growing list of personalized phrasings.

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

All well deserved labels for a group of people who remain silent or defend the junk science of Mann and his associates.

Even if one were to accept the claims you regurgitate about Mann/MBH… even if… you suggest a conspiracy of enablement – a conspiracy of complicity by thousands of dedicated climate scientists… individuals committed in their work to engage in legitimate science. You label the entire “client science community”… while at the same time… offering a disingenuous suggestion that, as you state, “AGW may or may not be true”. Really?

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

Here is a account of some of unprofesssional behavoir that climate scientists, the IPCC and jounral editors engaged in order to "defend the faith": http://bishophill.sq...esus-paper.html

And… it’s still you and the “hockey stick”… by the way, how is the ill-informed opinion of some denialist blogger relevant – who is he, what qualifications does he have, what science does he do? But again, we’re pointed to something that originates via McIntyre’s climateaudit blog. In the same derisive manner I’ve just dispatched your blog link, I’ll give you the same opportunity with a humorous little ditty titled, “The Anatomy of a ClimateAudit Post”… make sure to check through the comments – quite humourous, indeed!

Riverwind, on Oct 22 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

I was not as harsh with my criticisms until Mann 2008 came out. When it did I gave Mann the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he had learned something. I was frankly appalled at the level incompentence and/or dishonestly on display in that paper. It was at that point that I realized that if the climate science community is not willing to put an end to Mann and his nonsense then it does not deserve our trust.

One example of the incompentence in Mann 2008 is a test used to determine if the results could have occurred by chance. He did this by comparing the number of "hits" to the number of "hits" expected by chance. For example, if you flip a coin 100 times you would expect 50 heads - any more or less and your coin is not random. But Mann loaded the coin. He did not simply flip a coin. He flipped it again if it came up tails and counted it as a head if a head came up the second time. This change means that in a 100 counted tosses (up to 200 actual tosses), heads should come up 75 times. Mann ignored this and pretended that only 50 heads were required to prove his algorithm was working.

If you’re really trying to offer up something Mann2008 methodology based… do you have legitimate… accepted… criticisms of RegEM/EIV… that can stand on their own? Rather than deal in your trivial simplistic coin toss parroting, perhaps you could point directly to… oh, say your stated incompetence directly within Mann2008 or even as applied within a recently published related paper where RegEM/EIV is discussed at length

[Riverwind]

myata, on Oct 23 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

That "club" though includes thousands of qualified scientists from all around the world.

Prove it. Please provide evidence of this group of "thousands of qualified scientists" that actually know as much about the topic as SteveMc and RossMc. You will need to provide evidence that they have actually investigated the issues enought to have an informed opinion. I know you won't be able to do it because these "thousands of qualified scientists" simply DO NOT EXIST. The majority of scientists have never even looked at the issue and only blindly accept the conclusions of others which means they are no more informed than you.

myata, on Oct 23 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

Is there a global conspiracy to trump good quality research, with not one of fellow scientists who could see it, speaking up?

There are scientists who so speak up by find themselves immediately smeared a "industry shills" by the self appointed "defenders of the consensus". The environment is so toxic that scientists like Judith Curry a Georgia Tech personally attacked for doing nothing more than inviting SteveMc to give a presentation at the university. The only thing more pathetic that the behavoir of climate scientists are the people who stick their heads in the sand and insist, despite the evidence to the contrary, that climate scientists are all honest professionals who only care about good science.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 23 October 2009 - 06:28 PM

[Riverwind]

waldo, on Oct 23 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

If you’re really trying to offer up something Mann2008 methodology based… do you have legitimate… accepted… criticisms of RegEM/EIV… that can stand on their own?

I have already referenced SteveMc detailed deconstruction of Mann 2008. All you did was cut and paste Mann's completely inadequate reply to SteveMc's criticisms as if it was the final word on the topic. By doing so you provide further evidence of how broken the peer review process is.

For example, Mann made this claim in his reply:

Quote

The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.

To which SteveMc replied (on his blog because peer review process does not allow him to submit a follow up in the journal):
http://www.climateau...=7411#more-7411

Quote

These comments are either unresponsive to the observation that the Tiljander sediments were used upside down or untrue. Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed. The fact that they can "get" a Stick using Graybill bristlecones is well known, but even the NAS panel said that bristlecones should be "avoided" in temperature reconstructions - and that was before Ababneh's bombshell about Sheep Mt bristlecones. The claim that upside down data was used may indeed be "bizarre", but it is true.

So please tell me how the "peer review" process is supposed to resolve the continued disagreement between SteveMc and Mann on Mann 2008? SteveMc followed the process and submitted a comment which passed peer review. Mann dismissed the criticisms with some hand waving. The last time this happened politicians got involved and convened the Wegman and NAS panels which ended up agreeing completely with SteveMc. Based on that record a reasonable person who knows nothing about the topic would assume that SteveMc is right this time too.

This post has been edited by Riverwind: 23 October 2009 - 06:29 PM

[Oleg Bach]

Global warming=bad house keeping. As those ambitious and highly successful people gain more power - They create a mess..Much like a raging bull that shits as it walks. You would think that the successful human beings would take reponsiblity for wipping their own asses, instead of sticking us with their mess - We did not cause all the pollution - someone created useless product and systems that did - We do not profit - let those that profit clean up the mess.

[waldo]

Riverwind, on Oct 23 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

I have already referenced SteveMc detailed deconstruction of Mann 2008. All you did was cut and paste Mann's completely inadequate reply to SteveMc's criticisms as if it was the final word on the topic. By doing so you provide further evidence of how broken the peer review process is.

So please tell me how the "peer review" process is supposed to resolve the continued disagreement between SteveMc and Mann on Mann 2008? SteveMc followed the process and submitted a comment which passed peer review. Mann dismissed the criticisms with some hand waving. The last time this happened politicians got involved and convened the Wegman and NAS panels which ended up agreeing completely with SteveMc. Based on that record a reasonable person who knows nothing about the topic would assume that SteveMc is right this time too.

Just what are you/he whining about? McIntyre was accepted to be a reviewer of IPCC AP4... and yet... he does no actual science... does no actual research... writes no actual papers... submits nothing for actual publication. It's a joke to consider McIntyre is an actual "peer" to real scientists doing actual climate science... and, by and large, real climate scientists have no time for him given their focus and time availability. Notwithstanding, McIntyre's abrasive and combative style.

Obviously, you ignored everything preceding within this thread concerning Wegman/NAS Reports. In spite of everything posted to show otherwise you still maintain the Wegman and NAS reports vindicated McIntyre and denounced Mann. I won't bother posting the same previous retorts/links as you'll simply ignore them (again).

You position McIntyre as some definitive absolute authority... this, your latest post, is indicative of your reverence to the "almighty auditor". In actuality, McIntyre has been shown to be wrong on many occasions... in situations where his bulldozing has wrecked havoc with the work/reputations of several imminent scientists. His minions seize upon his latest crusade and flood the deniersphere with his accusations... yet, his backpedaling corrections never undue the damage done. You can parrot the, as you state, "detailed deconstruction of Mann 2008 by McIntyre"; I'm quite comfortable accepting the work of Mann given insights into McIntyre's modus operandi and the corroborating support that Mann gets for his work. I could drop several links to showcase the bumbling incorrect McIntyre; however, I particularly like the following one since it parallels your oft repeated parroting of the phrase, "cherry picking"... additionally, it highlights both McIntyre and his sidekick McKitrick. Happy reading - with a few selected quotes added for interest

Quote

Let the backpedalling begin

The latest battle over the “hockey stick” has taken quite a turn, one that may finally lay to rest all the absurd claims of its demise made by contrarians (not to mention apparently libelous accusations of scientific malfeasance). In previous posts, we discussed climate blogger Steve McIntyre’s scurrilous accusations of “cherrypicking” against UK dendrochronolgist Keith Briffa, and summarized a quick technical critique of McIntyre’s work by a dendrchronologist known as Delayed Oscillator.

Now comes new evidence that McIntyre’s accusations were completely false. And not only that, one of the Russian researchers who actually control the raw tree-ring data that McIntyre was mistakenly hounding Briffa for, has apparently confirmed that utilization of a newer more complete Yamal data set has no substantial effect on Briffa’s Yamal temperature reconstruction.

Quote

Meanwhile, Lorne Gunter of the National Post has decided to scramble to the front of the contrarian procession with yet another idiotic diatribe, entitled “The Myth of the Hockey Stick”. Among many passages requiring retraction would appear to be Gunter’s libelous conclusion

Quote

Let's set the record straight once and for all. Steve McIntyre has exactly one peer-reviewed article in the scientific literature (the GRL article co-authored with Ross McKitrick). One. Uno. That's it. He also has two comments in GRL related to that article. And finally there was the short commentary letter to PNAS which of course was not peer-reviewed.

Comments or corrections of others' work of course can be submitted to the original publication and certainly do not take years to appear. And these can be published at the authors' website in advance in any case. Case in point: the devastating critique of McLean et al's JGR article submitted within a month of publication by Foster et al.

As I mentioned, McIntyre has submitted only one of those letters or comments, as far as I know (the letter concerning Mann et al 2008 in PNAS

Quote

The truth is, after vanity publication in the industry front “Energy and Environment” McIntyre and McKitrick went journal-shopping. Nature turned them down flatly for being INACCURATE, and they LIED blatantly and claimed that it was because somehow there was a “lack of space.”

Finally they got their, already proven inaccurate, attack on Mann et. al in to Geophysical Research Letters, which has much looser standards – more, smaller, papers published, and that includes “frontier” research – another word for speculative or fringe papers.