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.
The real question is for Andy Revkin: Why don’t you start writing exposes in the NYT on the malpractice that’s rampant in this “scientific” community? That would keep you busy for years.
One other thing,
“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…”
Then, what was the basis of any of your conclusions?
Oh, and what were your conclusions rather than just the Abstract?
cn
1. Do you believe in Karl Popper’s falsification?
2. What is your justification for not releasing any of the code?
Suggestions for Steve’s McIntyre’s list of questions to the authors:
With >300 year resolution, can you say anything about intra-decadal or intra-centurial variability of the Holocene?
With >300 year resolution, is there any statistical basis for asserting that temperature change rates on the order of that claimed for the current century did not occur (at all, some, often) in the past 11,000 years?
With >300 year resolution, how can you assert that 2000-2009 was warmer than 75% of the Holocene, or that 1900-1909 was cooler than 95% of the Holocene?
Don’t you have a moral responsibility to boldly and loudly let the world know how misleading your paper’s assertions are, since they have been broadcasts in high amplitude around the world?
Yes leave it to Steve. With one caveat. In every “ring” dating endeavor, there are seasoned professionals in industry who do this kind of thing right or else they get fired. Let’s bring these seasoned professionals from the working world, not the Ivory Tower, to the table. Hell, I know of a barely graduated from high school tree guy and a “don’t even know if he graduated from high school” welder who both know more about tree rings and the molecular structure of metals than the Ivory Tower folks combined.
My question would be
Did you forget to use a long spoon when you supped with the Devil ?
To Steve or other question submitters:
I’d recommend honing in on specific statements that are made in the paper that can’t possibly be supported by the data, such as that 2000-2009 was warmer than 75% of the Holocene and 1900-1909 was cooler than 95% of the Holocene. Force them to admit not just that these assertions “might” be false, but that they have absolutely no basis.
son of mulder says:
April 7, 2013 at 12:27 am
/////////////////////////////////
Plus 1.
The motives behind the paper, changes from the PhD thesis, and PR spin are irrelevant and only serve to cloud the important issues, which is the science.
Let’s ensure that we keep the question to the science.
Two questions:-
How, when and by whom, were the errors in the two Ph.D. thesis’s spotted?
What did each of the authors listed contribute to the final publication?
Rud Istvan: That was a fine article that you posted at Judith’s. While I agree that we should filter our questions through Steve to avoid overflow and redundancy, I think in your case the work that you have done justifies asking your own questions. I also think that having the questions come only from Steve gives the appearance that none of the other skeptics think for themselves.
My impression is that this is furfy. It is an attempt by the authors to try to salvage some sort of respectability for the paper. The question were asked already by SM and not answered by the authors. I would guess that the journal may have requested this from them so they don’t have to withdraw it
Rud Istvan has basically answered all concerns. I forgot to mention R Istvan huge contribution equal or greater than SM’s. We are all here flogging a dead horse this paper will most certainly be retracted or withdrawn or Science Journal will be LOL
Steven Mosher (April 6, 2013 at 9:41 pm): “somebody like AMAC or Brandon or Just-the-facts would be a good compiler of questions [for Andrew Revkin].”
.
I appreciate Mosher’s compliment. He brings up my name because I chased down elements of the “Tiljander proxies” story. Due to carelessness and incompetence, Mann and couauthors’ upside-down use of the two (not four) uncalibratable Tiljander data sets corrupted the paleotemperature reconstructions of Mann et al (PNAS, 2008) and Mann et al (Science, 2009).
.
I decline the nomination for two reasons. First, I haven’t followed the twists and turns of the Marcott13 saga with sufficient diligence. More importantly, Steve McIntyre raises an important point (9:46 pm): “The problem with a whole lot of people responding [to Revkin] is that it gives [the paper’s authors] an excuse to avoid my issues.”
.
The conduct of the authors of Mann08 illustrates the reasons for McIntyre’s concern.
.
The key conclusions of this paper rely on the improper use of the Tiljander proxies (see, for example, Climate Audit). It’s understandable that the paper’s authors would try to avoid the issue (human nature being what it is). The passage of time has demonstrated that the broad climate science community accepts this conduct. (I also note that Tiljander is only one of many fatal problems that burden this paper and Mann09, as has been clearly shown at Climate Audit and the Air Vent. Tiljander is special because it’s simple to prove, and doesn’t need statistics to understand.)
.
Paradoxically, Mann and coauthors’ defense of their paper made use of the ensuing firestorm at skeptical blogs. One key strategy was to cherry-pick criticisms, focusing on some with faulty premises and others that were worded imprecisely. Trivial, evasive, and misleading answers followed. A second notable tactic was the use of non-author RealClimate bloggers as proxies, thus blunting the public-relations impact of grudgingly-made concessions on technical points.
.
The message to journalists and the general public: “Even though skeptics’ criticisms are ill-informed, we’ve answered them in the language of science. The indifference of other climate scientists to this kerfluffle shows that there are no genuine issues here.”
.
In my opinion, a scan of the Marcott FAQ shows that RealClimate‘s principals have dusted off the same playbook for use here.
.
McIntyre and his Climate Audit co-bloggers have identified the most crucial of the possible problems with Marcott13 (again, my opinion). Given his familiarity with bad-faith defenses of flawed science, I would prefer that McIntyre’s crucial few questions be the ones that Revkin puts to the paper’s authors.
.
There’s no great likelihood that Marcott and co-authors will provide satisfactory answers. But it would be a step forward for journalists (and the general public) to grapple with the notion that paleoclimatologists aren’t high priests: they should be expected to respond to criticisms according to the norms of the other physical sciences.
I do not feel comfortable with the way they proceeded. They posted their answer at Real Climate, a blog that is severely moderated, not allowing for an open discussion.
They ignored Climate Audit where pertinent questions were asked, but answering questions that nobody asked. They ignored WUWT. Whose questions were they answering?
As a consequence I am not comfortable this will lead to anything good. They could have answered directly on the Climate Audit posts on the respective subjects.
This comes to me as another attempt to diversion and not open questions answering.
Jim McCulley says:
April 7, 2013 at 6:40 am
My local paper is using Marcott for alarm today.
From the paper:
“Let’s look at one graph from the Marcott study labeled “Years (BP).” Temperature changes are noted on the vertical axis. The average temperature of the 30-year period from 1961 to 1990 is taken as the “0” degrees centigrade baseline (dotted), with temperature changes lower or higher measured relative to it. The graph’s shaded area on either side of the center line incorporates the statistics and uncertainties of the measurements.
The time in years (from today to 11,300 years ago) is measured along the horizontal axis.
Both the new Marcott data and the Mann data, where they overlap on the right, agree very well. Note that the temperatures today are higher than at any time in at least the past 4,000 or more years.
Knowing now how Marcott’s data was obtain, looking at how it is being used and usage accepted by them, I really do not have any questions to them.
Wish Steve McIntyre all the best.
Steve McIntyre says:
April 6, 2013 at 9:46 pm
“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”
Thank you so very much, Mr. McIntyre. The only question that others should submit is “When will you answer McIntyre’s questions.” Their FAQ dodged your questions. Let’s see if they can address them this time.
In my humble opinion, Revkin’s idea of collecting questions from the blogosphere and selecting his own is a recipe for a smoke screen. An honest approach would be to ask McIntyre for his questions and to submit them to Shakun.
Shakun has nothing to fear in answering McIntyre’s questions; that is, nothing except the results of first rate analysis. No one is more polite or more gentlemanly in these matters than McIntyre.
“leave it to Steve” — yes and no. Marcott et al are free to engage at Climate Audit and are encouraged to do so. However, having Revkin try to mediate will be fruitless and frustrating for all.
I think that Marcott et al do not respond (and will not) because they cannot justify what they did.
Which means that the next step of this investigation should be an inquiry by OSU, Harvard, Science, and AAAS into the actions of Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Alan C. Mix, and the Science editors.
“default of academic integrity” is cause for termination at OSU.
This is from ASU, not OSU, but this is the framework of the questions that need to be asked:
http://www.asu.edu/aad/manuals/acd/acd204-01.html
In addition to Steve Mc, I think Ross McKitrick would be able to pose some devastating questions.
I must agree with everyone who says let Steve McIntyre ask the questions. It needs someone who knows what they are talking about, dealing with someone who thinks they know what they are talking about.
Please provide a list of all reviewers.
Please provide a list of everyone involved with the statistical analysis of the data.
Please provide a list of the editors at Science who approved this paper for publication.
Please provide the code.
Exactly when and where will all of the above information be made available?
If Science kept the reviewers anonymous (which is the standard practice at journals), Marcott et al. may not know who they were. (They’re definitely not supposed to know.)
And even if Marcott et al. have a well-founded suspicion as to the identity of one or another reviewer, they may consider themselves under an obligation not to say who.
On the other hand, the “action editor” (or editors) at Science weren’t kept anonymous, so there is no reason for the authors not to name their names.
The questions about contributors to the analysis and about the actual code are also legitimate.
I’m definitely inclined to leave the compilation and presentation to Steve McIntyre.
Rud Istvan says:
April 7, 2013 at 6:11 am
Bravo! I look forward to more excellent contributions from you.
clivebest says:
April 7, 2013 at 2:02 am
“Do the authors agree that this age uncertainty implies that the reconstruction are indeed insensitive to excursions lasting only 200 years?”
Superb question. Tamino’s attempt to salvage something of Marcott depends on the answer to this question. I am sure that the answer is yes. And Tamino’s attempt is a fail.
I think the relevant experts should compile a list of questions pertaining solely to the science of the paper. Lord knows, there are enough of those to answer.
Then these should be submitted to Revkin personally – ie not on the blog. A record should be kept by all concerned of exactly what those questions were, and how they were framed. They could be submitted by Steve (or by a proxy, haha)
In this way Marcott et al will not know who has submitted which questions. If they refuse to answer, it is open to others to pursue the matter individually. However, as many others have suggested, I suspect this is merely a smokescreen intended to appear to address contentious issues while doing no such thing.
If Marcott and his collaborators were acting in good faith they would have engaged with legitimate queries and criticisms on the blogs where they were raised, notably CA. I wonder if Marcott himself would like to do that, but is in fear of the consequences to his career? It’s unclear here, who is pushing this new development: Revkin, his editors, or Science magazine? Or even the university in whose name this paper was published.
Meanwhile Revkin should rid himself of some of his more swivel-eyed posters, starting with Susan A, or at least rein them back. Much though I hate censorship, it’s difficult to take any discussion seriously which includes such dross – it amount to trolling.
Without doubt, IF any questions are submitted to Marcott via Revkin, Steve McIntyre is the one to do it. BUT the offer does look like a trap, or at least likely to be unproductive. So perhaps the only response should be to explicitly mention that the opportunity to DEBATE at CA is already offered.
As for submitting a list, anyone can compile questions, even good on-point ones that would seem to be of a “can’t be evaded” nature. In return, without debate measures in place, anyone responding can easily evade real answers and then claim that the whole world had the opportunity to ask, and all questions were answered. Case closed.
Without follow-up questions or a debate-like forum, we rely on a moderator to hold feet-to-fire. Perhaps Revkin would – perhaps not. CA (and other blogs) are quite capable (and – for people of good faith – credible) hosts for an honest debate – as long as “junior high” level taunts are discouraged, hopefully through self-restraint.
Steven Mosher suggested I would be a good person to compile questions for the authors. I’d be happy to do so, but I’m afraid I don’t see anything worth compiling. Steve McIntyre has a number of issues he’d obviously like to pursue, and I don’t think I’d need to repeat his questions. Skiphil has offered some good questions too. But other than that? I’m not sure I see any questions that ought to be asked. Here’s a (partial) list of questions I’ve seen on this page that shouldn’t be asked:
These questions are a complete waste of time. There’s no reason to ask the authors any of them, and I don’t even know why people would post them here. It seems people are more interested in venting, scoring points or just insulting people than actually asking questions.
I have questions I don’t think Steve McIntyre would ask so I’d be happy to compile a list of questions “perceived as unanswered.” I’m just not sure who has questions worth compiling.
These asked for “questions” are a self-serving attempt to kill the corrosive crumbling of this egregious add on to your thesis . Participating in this theater only gives a wrongful sense of legitimacy to the the quick patch-up ad hocery (hockery may be more like it) of the authors with the guidance and assistance of the rapidder-rapid response team at RC who encouraged these young fellows to ruin their thesis in the first place to put them on message. The team effort FAQ, motivated to deal with Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “scythe”, was thrown together a week ago with the main single question buried in a cocoon of Frequently Unasked Uninteresting Questions in the typically unimaginative way we have come to expect of these guys. Asking a bunch of further questions is just to put the cap on it all as it continues to gain notoriety. The few main questions have already been investigated and asked, only to have the answers dreamt up later but posited in such a way as to appear to have been seriously considered during he study. However, let me ask the only question that has been bothering me about the conclusions that hasn’t been answered:
Do you not see a scary, looming icy future for us all? Why didn’t the conclusions not only contain but HEADLINE the most obvious conclusion of the study that is sticking out there ahead of all else (in the graph of the results): A study of 73 proxies…etc. indicates an alarming, and accelerating cooling period over the last 8000 years that suggests the earth is nearing the end of the Holocene interglacial period. After all, 13,000 years is considered a fairly long interglacial – we are due for a new continental ice sheet. I predict that someone else is going to get a PhD with a similar study with the obvious conclusions and yours will be a footnote at the end of the global warming scam.