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.
Thanks Brandon, but I want to underline that those 9 questions at my
Skiphil says:
April 7, 2013 at 5:47 am
were not mine, they were from Jean S at Climate Audit.
Skiphil, I meant you offered them in the sense one offers a link or resource. You shared the questions; you didn’t create them. I don’t think any of the questions on this page are new.
I definitely should have been more clear though.
I’m more than happy to let Steve McIntyre decide what questions to ask, his instinct is pretty unerring and his manners are much better than my own.
Thinking about it, I took another look at the Marcott proxies … here they are with their original temperatures, in their original glory, from my post on the question. Colors are only there to help distinguish different proxies.
Looking at that, I realized that no, I didn’t really have any questions for Marcott, other than the obvious one … what were you thinking?
Because whatever those different proxies might be measuring, clearly it’s not the same thing.
w.
Can you not provide some indication as to what the variance in centuries previous to the last one or two might have been? Thank you.
Possible question:
“Does this mean that The Team have had lurch on the erratic path towards truth and now consider the blogosphere to be the best venue for debating the PeerReviewedLitchurchur?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science,” Dr. Mann said. “It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process.” He added: “Those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/climate-auditor-challenged-to-do-climate-science/
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/14/upside-side-down-mann-and-the-peerreviewedliterature/