Skiphil writes:
Andy Revkin of Dot Earth/NY Times blog is inviting questions to be submitted to the authors of Marcott et al. (2013). Since Revkin is one of the only journalists who might have a chance of getting the study authors to be responsive, this is a good opportunity.
Specifically, he’s asked for someone to prepare one list of questions which are “perceived as unanswered.”
Folks could start a list here at WUWT to post at Dot Earth, or simply post questions/points at Dot Earth until we have a good list.
submit questions on Marcott study to Dot Earth/NY Times blog
Andy Revkin Dot Earth blogger
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Was Michael Mann a reviewer of the manuscript ?
Why won’t Shakun and Marcott engage at ClimateAudit where there work is undergoing a detailed analysis? Why won’t they release their code?
Dear Sean, why on Earth did you listen to Mike?
My question for Marcott is was it worth it?
Marcott means corrupted. for ever more.
haha.. I came to post this
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments#permid=146:1
Anthony, I think somebody like AMAC or Brandon or Just the facts would be a good compiler of questions.
So Marcott is going to answer a question truthfully where the only true answer is, “I cheated to support AGW”. Don’t think so. But what and if he does answer should be entertaining. I think that these questions need to be very tightly structured, with exact references, so there is no way to sidestep the unjustifiable.
I saw Revkin’s comment and will send in some questions, since Shakun hasnt answered points that interested me. The problem with a whole lot of people responding is that it gives Shakun an excuse to avoid my issues. I’ll take a look at what people propose, but would prefer that readers let me decide what to pursue. Thx, Steve Mc
[snip]
Did any reviewer encourage or instruct the authors to re-date any of the modern proxy records with the intent of influencing principal components to produce hockey stick shapes?
Did you feel that any reviewer was insistent on producing a modern hockey stick as a condition of publishing? Do you have reason to believe this reviewer was Michael E. Mann?
Did any reviewer help produce the press release or otherwise suggest including the claim that modern warming rates were higher than past warming rates? Did this reviewer know that these claims were not robust?
Did you make any effort to temper claims that were not supported by the evidence before the press release was approved?
So It’s hot ea, tell me why is the Hawaii Islands out in the middle of the Pacific setting Cold records…
http://www.prh.noaa.gov/hnl/pages/rer.php
How about all that ice on hanging out around the south pole…
Oh well it’s weather not climate ea….
I’d recommend to stick to Judith Curry’s recommendation:
“Lets get to the bottom of this, but while doing so I remind you that one element of this is the struggle for the scientific souls of two promising young scientists. Please don’t overegg the pudding and inadvertently send them to the RealClimate refugee and training camp.”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/02/were-not-screwed/
I believe Steve McIntyre is the most qualified person of us all to ask questions and he can ask questions which really mater. Most other people here will just make things worse.
I think Steve Mosher has a good idea there. Get a group of knowledgeable statists, er statistatists, er statisticians, together, exchanging emails to submit legit questions. After answers are provided, at a later date release the e-mails the statisticians exchanged in choosing the questions. I call that taking the hi road. Also maybe not submit them under a name of anyone who must not be named. (;
Does not matter how the game was played…..just look at the scoreboard?
Posted this at Revkin’s blog:
In February 2011, Science magazine announced a new policy requiring authors to make their data and computer codes available to Science readers. Here is the relevant sentence:
“To address the growing complexity of data and analyses, Science is extending our data access requirement listed above to include computer codes involved in the creation or analysis of data.”
Have you made or will you make your code available?
“Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusion…”
Why did you elect to not exclude that period which was “not statistically robust” from the plot in order to preclude anybody from drawing any conclusions from them and would you have elected to omit it had that “not statistically robust” portion happened to have spiked downwards?
…one of the only journalists…
Er, ‘one of the FEW journalists’, or ‘the ONLY journalist’, perhaps?
/pedant
Only technical questions that challenge the validity of their findings are worth asking. All science stands or falls based on the technical.
Firstly, I think it is a sound plan to compile questions here then let SteveM ask those he wants;
Secondly, having now actually heard the interview I thought the guy came over quite well, talk of his negative body language and other personal traits seem wide of the mark.
My specific points are these; talking about warming he says ( I paraphrase) ‘The rapid global change we’ve got now is unprecedented-it will cause a 4 degree C rise according to global emissions path.’
Well the change is NOT global and never has been despite the misleading statements by both the IPCC and the Met office. Various studies -including mine and Verity Jones- estimated that one third of the world is cooling, a figure confirmed by BEST (with caveats that no doubt Mosh will explain at some point).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
One of those 30% is Britain which in some ways is fortunate (for others) as it has some of the finest and oldest instrumental and observational records in the world. The current decade long cooling in Britain is as rapid as was the warming, now sadly but a fond memory, as can be seen in the official Met office figures
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
CET has been shown to be a reasonable proxy for NH and global temperatures. As I demonstrated here in my own reconstruction to 1538, an upwards trend in temperatures can be noted as starting in 1690, which incidentally also shows the most rapid rise in the record. Whilst the Holocene generally may have been cooling for 8000 years, over the last 350 it has been warming (in fits and starts).
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
This demonstrates that the last part of the original hockey stick at least is tilted the wrong way-down instead of up. As a result the final uptick is grossly exaggerated, coming as it does from a much lower base than it should.
Now SteveM can pick what he wants out of that but certainly some of the basic propositions I heard in the interview need to be challenged
tonyb
Steven Mosher says: April 6, 2013 at 9:41 pm
I think somebody like AMAC or Brandon or Just the facts would be a good compiler of questions.
I appreciate the thought, but I haven’t been paying much attention to the Marcott affair, McIntyre’s on it. I’ve been focused on building the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference Page.
I haven’t included Marcott et al. yet, but I am planning a crowdsourcing thread :
Perhaps, once Steve has had an opportunity to get to the bottom of Marcott et al., we can have a crowdsourcing thread dedicated to Marcott. The thread would help to capture all of the facts in one place and help determine an appropriate label/treatment for Marcott et al. on the WUWT Paleoclimate Reference page. Today I created a new section at the bottom of the page for Incorrect/Falsified Graphs. It already has one resident, but there’s plenty of room for more…
Steven Mosher says: “haha.. I came to post this”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments#permid=146:1
Haha, indeed! I loved Susan Anderson’s marvellous Freudian slip.
Why on earth would so called scientists not communicate directly with Steve at CA one of the best science blogs on the net ?
If CO2 increases from 0.0032% to 0.004% of the Earth’s atmosphere (of which only a small percentage is man-made) how can this tiny amount cause the doomsday scenario that we are continually told will happen?
Why have none of the predicted climate disasters happened yet?
Why have we experienced a succession of cold winters in the UK, when we were told that snow would be a “rare and exciting event” which clearly it isn’t?
Why do climate scientists want to ignore the medieval warm period?
Why have average global temperatures remained virtually constant for the last 20 years despite the minuscule increase in the already minuscule amount of CO2?
Why do allegedly serious climate scientists want label those of us who do not believe what they say as “deniers” and in extreme cases want us executed?
And finally
Why do you all talk a load of b*****s?
Sorry, but colour me somewhat skeptical about the purpose and value of this particular exercise.
If Revkin were genuinely serious about this, he would (and certainly could) have posted his “invitation” as an update to the headpost – rather than buried deep in the heart of 600+ comments (many – if not most – of which seem to have been written by the un-premoderated recycler of drivel, Susan Anderson).
Come to think of it, considering his many years on the climate beat, it’s somewhat surprising that Revkin is not capable of compiling such a list of questions himself without further input. Certainly, a comparison of the Filibuster After Questions™ with the questions already posed by Steve at CA would be a damn good start for any self-respecting journalist with a curious and investigative mind.
So, colour me very surprised if this exercise turns out to be anything more than Revkin providing yet another delay/opportunity for Marcott et al (and/or their ghost-writers?!) to produce yet another non-responsive FAQ.
Leave it to Steve Mc. There is no-one else that the team fear more and that we can trust more.