archive-org.com » ORG » C » CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG

Total: 491

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • donard « Climate Audit
    Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/donard/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • korttajarvi « Climate Audit
    Oct 14 2009 10 19 PM In Andrew Revkin s recent blog posting he made the following observation about blogs referring in particular to Climate Audit What is novel about all of this is how the blog discussions have sidestepped the traditional process of peer review and publication then review and publication of critiques and counter critiques by which science normally does that By Steve McIntyre Posted in Mann et al 2008 Also tagged baker Mann et al 2008 revkin tiljander Comments 302 Atte Korhola political and social playground Oct 2 2009 9 41 AM There is an interesting and in my opinion very bold comment dated 9 27 here in Finnish Google Translation in a Finnish web journal by professor Atte Korhola entitled Recession in Climate Science Korhola Esitän kärkeen heti teesin jonka mieluusti alistan julkiseen kritiikkiin kun myöhemmät polvet tutustuvat ilmastotieteeseen he luokittelevat 2000 luvun alun tieteen historian noloihin lukuihin By Jean S Posted in Kaufman 2009 News and Commentary Also tagged kaufman korhola tiljander Comments 82 Kaufman and Upside Down Mann Sep 3 2009 12 08 PM Kaufman et al 2009 published at 2 pm today is a multiproxy study involving the following regular Team authors Bradley Briffa the AR4 millennial reconstruction lead author Overpeck Caspar Ammann David Schneider of Steig et al 2009 Bradley as well as Otto Bleisner Ammann s supervisor and conflicted NAS Panel member and JOPL SI authors who are various By Steve McIntyre Posted in Kaufman 2009 Multiproxy Studies Also tagged kaufman tiljander Comments 306 Older posts Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/korttajarvi/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • overpeck « Climate Audit
    he and his students actually did useful field work Elsewhere I ve noted that their MSc theses contain many helpful details on the Alaskan lakes The situation is entirely different with the Greenland lakes where Jonathan Overpeck was the point man for the ARCUS2k lake project collection Kaufman et al 2009 contains By Steve McIntyre Posted in General Also tagged greenland kaufman Comments 6 Tip Jar The Tip Jar is working again via a temporary location Pages About Blog Rules and Road Map CA Assistant CA blog setup Contact Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/overpeck/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • silvaplana « Climate Audit
    al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/silvaplana/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • shi « Climate Audit
    Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/shi/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • bradley « Climate Audit
    Steve Mc Econometric References FAQ 2005 Gridded Data High Resolution Ocean Sediments Hockey Stick Studies Proxy Data Station Data Statistics and R Subscribe to CA Tip Jar Categories Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/bradley/page/2/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Behind Closed Doors: “Perpetuating Rubbish” « Climate Audit
    of Soon and Baliunas Recall that Bradley had complained that that Jones and Mann had failed to consider what went into the Yang composite 2 ice core delta 18O records of dubious relationship to temperature These series were of course versions of the Dunde and Guliya series popularized by Lonnie Thompson In Bradley et al 2003 they were not described as having a dubious relationship to temperature but as well calibrated data sets As noted above despite the private misgivings of the various authors expressed prior to publication of Mann et al 2003 Osborn and Briffa 2006 used the Yang composite anyway justifying its inclusion on the basis that it had been used in Mann et al 2003 Similar rationales were used for its inclusion in the IPCC 2007 Box 6 4 Figure 1 without overturning Bradley s objection that such re use simply perpetuates rubbish Update Dec 3 2011 Jean S has drawn attention to the fact that differnt online versions of this article show precisely what changes were made The earliest version is the one at von Storch s website here It has the Yang composite in Figure 2 and the Briffa 2000 reconstruction in Figure 1 Hughes not an author The next June 20 version is online at Stephen Schneider s website here it replaced the Briffa 2000 reconstruction in Figure 1 with the Mann and Jones 2003 reconstruction it still had the Yang composite in Figure 2 and still failed to show Hughes as a coauthor Hughes was added as a coauthor in the next version here and as published here otherwise things appear to be unchanged Like this Like Loading Related This entry was written by Steve McIntyre posted on Nov 25 2011 at 8 38 PM filed under cg2 Uncategorized and tagged bradley yang Bookmark the permalink Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed A Somewhat Late Response to Schneider IPCC Fix It or Fold It 104 Comments CBDenver Posted Nov 25 2011 at 9 06 PM Permalink So privately they said the series had a dubious relationship to temperature but publicly they said it was well calibrated I am just about to the point of never trusting any scientists at all Duster Posted Nov 26 2011 at 12 37 AM Permalink If you tend forget that scientists are human beings with axes to grind opinions they are invested in etc then indeed you should never trust scientists This kind of behaviour has been present for centuries Newton was just as bad and Bacon delineated the experimental method because of it He had hopes that experimental work would force a buffer of objective empirical fact between nature and a scientist s opinions He never anticipated statistics as a tool of science Richard Drake Posted Nov 26 2011 at 3 27 AM Permalink I don t think Bacon would have any problem with statistics It s the conveyor belt from untested science to policy with the IPCC the mediator that makes what is called climate science such a problem kim2ooo Posted Nov 25 2011 at 9 08 PM Permalink Well done Chants Posted Nov 25 2011 at 9 38 PM Permalink IT IS A DIFFICULT CALL WHETHER TO DUMP SERIES THAT HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT LINK TO TEMPERATURE AND WHICH ARE AS WELL DUBIOUS ON A PRIORI GROUNDS OR TO USE A WEIGHTING SCHEME Wigley s inline comment 539 2003 06 25 Heh Gotta love Wigley s wit an way with words Wasn t Wigley also the guy wryly asking about a reindeer crapping next to a tree in Yamal John Norris Posted Nov 25 2011 at 9 45 PM Permalink re despite the private misgivings of the various authors expressed prior to publication of Mann et al 2003 Osborn and Briffa 2006 used the Yang composite anyway Not being a climate scientist Steve you just don t understand The Yang composite is like a fine wine Richard Drake Posted Nov 25 2011 at 9 46 PM Permalink By my count that s eleven separate email files used from the new batch permitting a much fuller narrative than would ever have been possible in Nov 09 But rubbish is the right word In email 435 Cook complained that Bradley s air of papal infallibility is really quite nauseating at times a point on which both warmist and skeptic could agree But Bradley was truest to science here for a while until his turn came to publish against Soon and he was as bad as the rest These guys are clearly doing something that looks a bit like science But the corruption has been around for so long they hardly notice it isn t anything like the real thing Steve McIntyre Posted Nov 25 2011 at 10 46 PM Permalink There are many new emails that shed light on the Soon Baliunas controversy an issue that I hadnt examined closely before I ll be posting at length on this crosspatch Posted Nov 27 2011 at 1 07 AM Permalink I saw this mentioned over at Anthony s site Might be worth a look http newzealandclimatechange wordpress com 2011 11 27 climategate 2 and corruption of peer review The starting point is email 2683 from 12 April 2003 when there is grumbling about a paper by Soon Baliunas S B published in the journal Climate Research abreviated to CR in the emails Gerald Machnee Posted Nov 25 2011 at 9 47 PM Permalink It is easier to select and weight series when you know the answer EdeF Posted Nov 25 2011 at 9 53 PM Permalink Some Climate Audit comments on the 2003 Soon and Baliumus controversy circa 2005 some background http climateaudit org 2005 09 29 wahl and ammann at grl comments ikh Posted Nov 25 2011 at 10 18 PM Permalink Wow If I understand this correctly the whole purpose of this paper was to counter Soon and Baliunas So they knock up a paper using a whole bunch of dubious proxy time series and knowingly publish to use a technical term crap Call me Old Fashioned but I always thought the purpose of a scientific paper was to publish something new novel and non obvious so as to advance knowledge of the field How the hell was this science This deeply ofends me ikh Francis Posted Nov 25 2011 at 10 33 PM Permalink And note how easy it was for them to get their crap published I have nothing against those who have a strong hunch and defend it passionately The History of science if full of those people who showed pluck and against all odds in the end were proven right And is not our own judiciary system based on that principl That is you don t expect each lawyer defence and accusation to defend both point of views the judge or jury in science experiment will decide which side is right Now the problem here is not that those miserable failures adovacated strongly a single viewpoint I think what was wrong was their corruption of the whole system i e their stifling of opposition corruption of judges experiments tampering with evidence and others The whole thing could be very comical but I can t help thinking of all the political propaganda that was built on their consensus and all the money squandered based on such false testimony Shame on them CoPete Posted Nov 25 2011 at 10 29 PM Permalink Wasn t this used in Loehle s reconstruction too Steve my my Yes it was Post amended to correct this Macumazan Posted Nov 26 2011 at 2 52 AM Permalink One EMENDS an article when one edits it One makes AMENDS when one pays compensation for a wrong done An emendation is not an amendment Of course in the case of climatologists one can reasonably expect both emendations AND amendments In your own case however minor emendations suffice and amendents are not required becaue your integrity stands out But the released emails simply scandalous They surely reflect on the character of their authors and must count against the admissibility of any sworn evidence that they might submit to a court of law Richard Drake Posted Nov 26 2011 at 3 36 AM Permalink Indeed Steve had said nothing wrong But this shows how the poisoning of the well early on in this case knowing some data is crap but never letting on publicly because you re so committed as a group to defame Soon Baliunas can take even researchers with real integrity off course down the track What is the cleanup operation for climate science going to look like Andrei Sakharov at the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1964 John Link Posted Nov 26 2011 at 5 29 PM Permalink One EMENDS an article when one edits it One makes AMENDS when one pays compensation for a wrong done Yeah that s why the Bill of Rights added to the U S Constitution are called the first Ten Emendments Oh wait they re not Changes to the US Constitution are called Amendments Sorry but makes amends is an idiomatic expression It offers little guidance as to the meaning of amend If you want to argue that emend means to improve by changing a text then consider the 18th amendment to the US constitution that ushered in Prohibition as opposed to the 21st amendment that abolished it Which one represents an improvement BobN Posted Nov 28 2011 at 3 13 PM Permalink While you are of course correct that emend means to correct a faulty text you are incorrect that amend only means when one pays compenstion for a wrong or even that compensation is necesary for one to amend one s wrong To change for the better or change to fix mistakes are probably the most common definitons for the word Amend Why do they call changes to the US Constitution Amendments Patrick M Posted Nov 25 2011 at 10 48 PM Permalink I m sensing that not only is the team pushing for publication but that there is also a force pulling for publication Is it possible the tune is being called from elsewhere NukemHill Posted Nov 26 2011 at 1 08 AM Permalink I think at Wattsupwiththat there is a comment to the effect that there are several emails detailing a relationship with the World Bank that was previously undisclosed I think that s the trail worth following NukemHill Posted Nov 26 2011 at 1 12 AM Permalink Yes http wattsupwiththat com 2011 11 24 world bank global warming journals and cru Richard Drake Posted Nov 26 2011 at 3 41 AM Permalink Definitely a trail but not in my view the trail That s going to take time and maybe release 3 of the emails via FOIA s passphrase Patrick M Posted Nov 26 2011 at 7 27 PM Permalink Interesting Wonder where things will lead Marion Posted Nov 26 2011 at 9 23 AM Permalink Absolutley one should always follow the money Governments have provided vast sums for scientific research but only to those scientists providing the right answers and supportive of their preferred political agenda the same goes for NGOs Two excellent articles which give some of the political background http www hoover org publications policy review article 43291 http eureferendum blogspot com 2010 03 amazongate part ii seeing redd html Don t for one moment think it is about noble cause corruption it isn t BobN Posted Nov 25 2011 at 11 33 PM Permalink I couldn t get passed this apparently from Michail Mann The China series has a reasonable r 0 22 but not great correlation and it gets a moderate low weight Since when did r 0 22 become reasonable but not great correlation r 0 22 is for all intents and purposes essentially uncorrelated or only slightly correlated at best Steve that s for decadally smoothed series so it s less significant than it seems Its also better than many proxies MikeN Posted Nov 26 2011 at 1 22 AM Permalink Mann 08 uses a correlation level of 106 I think this is some sort of autcorrelation magic number Jimmy Haigh Posted Nov 26 2011 at 12 28 AM Permalink Isn t it great having all of these e mails where we sceptics can put everything into the proper context Richard Drake Posted Nov 26 2011 at 3 45 AM Permalink It s what we do best But anyone else is welcome to try Christopher Chantrill Posted Nov 26 2011 at 12 54 AM Permalink If I were on the Team I just wouldn t be able to bring myself to read a post like this It would ruin my whole trip to Durban steven mosher Posted Nov 26 2011 at 1 11 AM Permalink you misunderstand this is merely sausage being made it the end it tastes great what appear to be mouseturds in the ingredients will look and taste like pepper when it is all cooked up properly RuhRoh Posted Nov 26 2011 at 2 09 AM Permalink Damn you Steve Mosher Just as the diapers of my firstborn child caused me to never again appreciate squirt mustard in quite the same way as before I will never again eat Cotto Salami without thinking of this lovely vignette you so thoughtfully provided RR steven mosher Posted Nov 26 2011 at 3 11 AM Permalink haha and I was going to put squirt mustard on that sausage ChE Posted Nov 26 2011 at 10 11 AM Permalink The funny thing is that somebody over at Curry s said pretty much exactly that in total deadpan seriousness Yes we can make treemometers RuhRoh Posted Nov 26 2011 at 1 59 AM Permalink Mr McI For me anyway it would strengthen the narrative to include some linkage to the participation of EOS editor Ellen Moseley Thompson having participated in the earlier email chain discussing what to do about Soon and Baliunas Also the usage of reviewing regarding E M T role is possibly ambiguous she apparently was not the technical reviewer but did some reviewing in her editorial role I can t wait to hear how the apologists spin the use of the technical keyword crap as they were able to do with trick Thanks for this powerful analysis RR steven mosher Posted Nov 26 2011 at 3 13 AM Permalink crap is a term of art like trick you can t understand it unless you are part of the profession which profession i wont say ChE Posted Nov 26 2011 at 10 13 AM Permalink Terms of art need to be Latin It s crapus trickus rhymes with a certain Monte Python scene j ferguson Posted Nov 27 2011 at 12 30 AM Permalink ChE Latin No kidding I thought only s meaning specific to some professional activity was required Nutus Lucy Skywalker Posted Nov 27 2011 at 7 57 AM Permalink The word quality here has been chosen carefully as something that is deliberately a bit ambiguous So to trick and crap add quality a word that can be chosen to describe something that is deliberately a bit ambiguous Jan Posted Nov 26 2011 at 3 00 PM Permalink RuhRoh I think these are couple of examples from the original release 105115641 http foia2011 org index php id 5605 105123050 http foia2011 org index php id 5608 and a newer one http foia2011 org index php id 4343 RuhRoh Posted Nov 27 2011 at 5 07 PM Permalink Thanks that 4343 note April 24 2003 from tranche II is spot on perhaps the seminal note by Schneider eliciting a targeted response to Soon Bial for nakedly political purposes That was the missing piece for me Perhaps others also RR Maurizio Morabito omnologos Posted Nov 26 2011 at 2 45 AM Permalink Isn t it like with models each one of them being rubbish but magically considered relevant as an ensemble NukemHill Posted Nov 26 2011 at 8 23 PM Permalink I ve actually been marveling over much the same thought All this talk about properly weighting the various datasets for the uninitiated this sounds quite scientific and proper But once one really digs into the content of these studies one comes to the realization that it s all a crap sandwich It s all a bunch of hand waving in an attempt to pull a spectacularly epic snow job To think they almost got away with it And frankly may still Alix James Posted Nov 28 2011 at 12 57 PM Permalink Isn t it like with models each one of them being rubbish but magically considered relevant as an ensemble Kinda sounds like the housing collapse in 2008 each of the mortgages were rubbish but magically considered viable as an ensemble Steve Jones Posted Nov 26 2011 at 4 46 AM Permalink Great stuff Mr McIntyre Have been reading CA for a number of years and think it is one of the best sites for proper analysis of the AGW scam Having trained as a physicist my suspicions about the AGW position were raised when I read of the fielding of the term concensus as if it somehow clinched the argument For any true scientist this is like a red rag to a bull The greatest proponent of this argument being the planet s most accomplished snake oil salesman and Nobel Laureate Al Gore Anyway this is a long winded way of saying thank you and the many contributors to this site for your tireless efforts to expose this scam SJ Mac Posted Nov 26 2011 at 5 17 AM Permalink So the Team conspired to discredit S B by the use and inclusion of crap data in order to manufacture outrage at CR outrage that led to resignations Is that how climate science is done Richard Drake Posted Nov 26 2011 at 5 39 AM Permalink You can t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs as the man said Lucy Skywalker Posted Nov 27 2011 at 7 19 AM Permalink So the Team conspired to discredit S B by the use and inclusion of crap data in order to manufacture outrage at CR outrage that led to resignations Is that how climate science is done this seems to be the big conclusion But there s more worse the evidence for discrediting Soon Baliunas is itself susceptible to the very problems on which S B is supposed to founder Like being paid to issue criticisms of simony and bribery And now I can guess why the Team never use single proxies but always multiproxy recons in their public front As they say there are problems with all series used and the use of multiproxy curves is to juggle raw data series until they could balance and hide each others shortcomings Thus the familiar spaghetti curve looks like an honest statement of raw data but each curve has already been cooked TerryS Posted Nov 26 2011 at 5 25 AM Permalink Re 4249 Hi Tom In Phil s absence I was just now looked at his PC because I needed some files emails for a separate matter and I noticed that you had emailed Phil Ray Mike concurring with Ray s concerns As a side note to this if you want to claim your email is private then you must treat it as private at all times I think the FOI person made this point in one email Giving a 3rd party Tim Osburne access negates the idea that you consider the emails private pax Posted Nov 26 2011 at 7 53 AM Permalink I thought exactly the same thing when I read that KnR Posted Nov 26 2011 at 5 33 AM Permalink You have to hope the rest of the climate science community and the science community will open their mouth and let the Team know what they think of such behavior But that may be a forlorn hope for they failed to do any such thing so far So let hope they at least let the public know they do not approve or support this way of working Steve McIntyre Posted Nov 26 2011 at 6 19 AM Permalink There is much much more in the emails about the lead up to Mann et al EOS 2003 and the fall out It s far too much for a single post It s an interesting visit for me because it was all mostly before my involvement in the field Dennis Wingo Posted Nov 26 2011 at 5 34 PM Permalink It s an interesting visit for me because it was all mostly before my involvement in the field And as I am sure you have noticed you take up an increasingly large fraction of the later emails as their target of scorn fear Maurizio Morabito omnologos Posted Nov 26 2011 at 7 44 PM Permalink There are around 1 000 occurrences of McIntyre in Climategate 2 0 compared to slightly less than 13000 for Phil Jones Lucy Skywalker Posted Nov 27 2011 at 7 38 AM Permalink I hope you can do a post on the differences between pre McIntyre and post McIntyre eras I m thinking this could elicit hard evidence as to why your unrestricted witness is essential and unavoidable in any new enquiry Sean Houlihane Posted Nov 26 2011 at 6 36 AM Permalink This phrase from Mann is quite telling imo It backs up his seeming incomprehension that an upside down series could matter so if a series is truly crap in an objectively determined sense it got very low weight Does this really show that he has so much trust in the statistics as to imagine that any garbage series that correlates well with temperature makes a good proxy I can kind of see that he is right in some cases for example in a fourier transform any sine wave which correlates at all is part of the proxy Similarly a straight line fit on a scatter plot might often have some predictive value and that sort of thing gets fairly strong presence in undergrad physics courses and near enough zero on significance Particularly going back 15 years when this use of stats in climatology was a bit more cutting edge I can imagine that it could be a justification for pulling in any series with the slightest hint of physical justification in the expectation that the magic of regEM would sort out the mess This flawed foundation becomes the foundation of confirmation bias some others start feeding in money for their own personal ends and the process starts to snowball without necessarily any malicious intent on the science side Steve McIntyre Posted Nov 26 2011 at 8 24 AM Permalink Does this really show that he has so much trust in the statistics as to imagine that any garbage series that correlates well with temperature makes a good proxy Therein lies the road to upside down Tiljander JamesG Posted Nov 26 2011 at 9 54 AM Permalink The truth of course is that if a series is hockey stick shaped it gets a very high weight Mann seemingly just doesn t realise this All the others seem to but ignore it anyway Who is worse ChE Posted Nov 26 2011 at 11 15 AM Permalink He realizes it he just says it s a feature and not a bug He claims that this separates the treemometers from the treegrometers William Larson Posted Nov 26 2011 at 3 16 PM Permalink Isn t this a line from Star Wars Who is the greater fool The fool or the fool who follows him clazy8 Posted Nov 26 2011 at 11 56 AM Permalink Sean I really like this observation of yours Is it true that statistics was cutting edge in climatology 15 years back I m reminded of a point that IIRC Briggs makes that you better understand exactly how statistics work before you draw conclusions from them or you will get in trouble As you say it doesn t require malice Frustration is enough if it s abetted by naivete wishful thinking and perhaps crucially indiscipline Imagine a seemingly impassable hurdle blocks meaningful progress in your field but an unfamiliar evidently powerful tool has been used successfully to deal with similar problems albeit in different fields of study under different circumstances Hope springs anew Ideally you d hire a professional to use this new tool but you re a smart guy an academic it can t be that hard for someone with your intellectual gifts to figure it out as you go along Of course you re also human and whenever you re faced with a question just beyond the range of your present understanding you re inclined to adopt the answer that better suits your overall objective Unfortunately there s no one to correct your errors except your colleagues and they are in the same position as you Even worse your errors are rewarded with grants and reknown You re at the top of your profession So how will you respond when people you don t know people you ve never even heard of insist that you have made fundamental errors It s too late to turn back Exasperated Posted Nov 26 2011 at 9 31 AM Permalink Is this really the way the peer review publication process works in Climate Science If so it is completely broken You do not get to just substitute new data and figures after the review is completed in any credible journal The editor or section editors should be forced to resign all articles with post reviewer acceptance change beyond the typical grammar and spelling minor changes should be marked as such and the editor should apologize and resign Anyone involved in overseeing this ham handed review process should be barred from participating in any peer review process for 3 years grants manuscripts tenure review etc see the misconduct penalties administered by the NIH or other federal funding agencies This type of collusion completely undermines the peer review process regardless of the particular field the authors involved or the individual findings supposedly described in the work The weighting or inclusion of a particular series can easily be dismissed as a minor issue undermining and destroying the peer review process is an issue around which a much broader coalition can be constructed to refute the machinations of The Team Dave Dardinger Posted Nov 26 2011 at 10 10 AM Permalink But since according to various Team members no reviewer ever asks for the data during the review process or presumably afterwards either it obviously doesn t matter if one set of data is substituted for another after the review is finished Craig Loehle Posted Nov 26 2011 at 2 12 PM Permalink You don t understand they were just enhancing a figure whose purpose was purely propaganda so which data went in did not matter their argument was virtuous and therefore right sarc Maurizio Morabito omnologos Posted Nov 26 2011 at 9 50 AM Permalink You know what would be truly diabolical now For FOIA to distribute in a couple of years some emails from the period immediately AFTER the first Climategate Lucy Skywalker Posted Nov 27 2011 at 7 33 AM Permalink That would just be sensation IMO what these older tranches do is tell the story of the process of corruption We need to know this history in order to reverse it as cleanly as possible Auditing before reform otherwise we run the risk of simply continuing old problems or introducing variants of old problems One thing I m thinking here in this thread is that Climate Science should un cook all the cooked spaghetti lines and show the raw series just as to regain trustworthy temperature records we need individual station data history and local urbanization history rather than using gridded cooked data that are probably inadequately corrected for UHI etc Michael Jankowski Posted Nov 26 2011 at 9 51 AM Permalink It seems as if the comments of climate scientists behind closed doors are quite different than their public persona except for Mann He is a master of spin and denial in both realms Hu McCulloch Posted Nov 26 2011 at 10 55 AM Permalink FWIW Yang did not have a particularly high variance about the 18 proxy mean in Loehle and McCulloch 2008 not 2010 In my SI linked at http econ ohio state edu jhm AGW Loehle I tabulate these variances and then experiment with a culling the data set to exclude those proxies which are so noisy that they are actually detrimental to the mean and b using weighted least squares WLS to obtain a more efficient mean using all 18 series The only two series that merited culling were Cronin and DeMenocal Yang was not even close to the cutoff variance However culling and WLS both gave a qualitatively similar though somewhat attenuated reconstruction to just using all 18 with equal weights so we went with the more easilly understood equal weight scheme that Craig had used in his original 2007 article Yang may in fact be c but Craig deliberately deferred to peer review in his selection criterion Each series had to be peer reviewed calibrated to temperature by its author extend back 2000 years and be non dendro He attempted to include all such series in the interest of objectivity Although Yang included a few treering series Craig counted it as non dendro because they had only a small weight in the Yang multiproxy series Craig Loehle Posted Nov 26 2011 at 2 14 PM Permalink If I had understood what I know now about Yamal I would not have used it On the other hand I don t take Bradley s word for it that something is crap maybe he didn t understand that proxy or didn t like the answer it gave Dion Posted Nov 26 2011 at 7 30 PM Permalink Ahhhh such perfectly settled science from such perfectly random noise How does one go about getting government grants for the construction of lines and statistical claptrap from climate data clouds Do I need Excel or should I dust off my TRS 80 Hu McCulloch Posted Dec 5 2011 at 9 43 AM Permalink To be clear c is Bradley s term not mine and I appologize to Prof Yang and co authors for having repeated it so casually That said I think it would be ideal if future studies would disaggregate the Yang series back into the 9 series that they have identified as informative and then to evaluate each on its own merits Even if some of the individual series turn out to be dubious Yang and co authors have performed a useful service by identifying and compiling several series that otherwise might have escaped Western attention Disaggregation would also allow the data to be used with more geographical precision As it stands the Yang composite shows a strong MWP and LIA and then turns up at the end comparably to the MWP See plots in my SI linked above No one denies that the 20th c has been warm in comparison to the LIA or even 19th c so it appears to shed useful light on just how warm we are relative to the MWP climatebeagle Posted Nov 26 2011 at 11 22 AM Permalink The word quality here has been chosen carefully as something that is deliberately a bit ambiguous How on earth is this science Is there some missing context that Real Climate could use to justify something like this Stacey Posted Nov 26 2011 at 11 54 AM Permalink File No 382 I m not sure if this is relevant There is more From Phil Jones To Tom Wigley Subject Re geo Re CCNet A Scientific Scandal Unfolds Date Mon Oct 5 10 03 02 2009 Tom Thanks for trying to clear the air with a few people Keith is still working on a response Having to contact the Russians to get some more site details takes time Several things in all this are ludicrous as you point out Yamal is one site and isn t in most of the millennial reconstructions It isn t in MBH Crowley Moberg etc Also picking trees for a temperature response is not done either The other odd thing is that they seem to think that you can reconstruct the last millennium from a few proxies yet you can t do this from a few instrumental series for the last 150 years Instrumental data are perfect proxies after all 1 http www americanthinker com 2009 10 un climate reports they lie html This one is wrong as well IPCC 1995 didn t use that silly curve that Chris Folland or Geoff Jenkins put together Cheers PhiL Ron Manley Posted Nov 27 2011 at 2 46 AM Permalink Jone s statement The other odd thing is that they seem to think that you can reconstruct the last millennium from a few proxies yet you can t do this from a few instrumental series for the last 150 years Instrumental data are perfect proxies after all is blindingly obvious but a point often overlooked It s also interesting to compare Jone s use of they when being critical and we when trying to get a paper using a few proxies published TedK Posted Nov 26 2011 at 12 30 PM Permalink Steve Given the details you ve laid out I wonder whether Mann s testimony before Congress is possibly perjurious I doubt anyone can call it innocently scientifically astray The whole behind the scenes activites that are in the above emails just to disparage the Soon Baliunas paper is perhaps scurrilous The basic intent of the discussed rebuttal results in impacts intended to both men s careers and prestige in their fields of study Couple co operative mal intent and mis leading testimony before Congress isn t that racketeering Given the release and subsequent analysis of the email trove pal review collaborators should reassess their participation contributions to this travesty and consider seeking protection from prosecution for their cooperation with inside info The first insiders to come clean with IGs AGs usually get the best deals and keep or re build some integrity those dragged kicking and screaming ad homs can look to learning new trades inside John A Posted Nov 26 2011 at 2 27 PM Permalink I edited the post and put some section titles in to aid readability because I think its important to help everyone along with the story I still cannot believe what I m reading in their own words patrioticduo Posted Nov 26 2011 at 2 27 PM Permalink Steve bravo on the details above This informed and accurate analysis is far more difficult for the Team to blow off Which is what RC seems to be trying to do with the current turkey thread It speaks volumes to me that Gavin is spending so much time obfuscating rather than directly addressing the ethical questions that others are asking on the thread On that note perhaps you ve already answered this and if you have then excuse me asking again but in email 2743 Mr Mann refers to deleting comments from you and your minions Do you have an account or recollection of the comments that were deleted Over at RC Gavin doesn t address the reason why deleting comments would be acceptable other than to imply that it was just Mann trying to defend his work But I would be interested to know what you had posted there to see if there could be any conceivable good reason for Mann to be deleting them Thanks again patrioticduo Posted Nov 26 2011 at 2 34 PM Permalink A clarification the RC post I am interested in

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behind-closed-doors-perpetuating-rubbish/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive

  • yang « Climate Audit
    Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg 2005 pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post 1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded Articles CCSP Workshop Nov05 McIntyre McKitrick 2003 MM05 GRL MM05 EE NAS Panel Reply to Huybers Reply to von Storch Blogroll Accuweather Blogs Andrew Revkin Anthony Watts Bishop Hill Bob Tisdale Dan Hughes David Stockwell Icecap Idsos James Annan Jeff Id Josh Halpern Judith Curry Keith Kloor Klimazweibel Lubos Motl Lucia s Blackboard Matt Briggs NASA GISS Nature Blogs RealClimate Roger Pielke Jr Roger Pielke Sr Roman M Science of Doom Tamino Warwick Hughes Watts Up With That William Connolley WordPress com World Climate Report Favorite posts Bring the Proxies up to date Due Diligence FAQ 2005 McKitrick What is the Hockey Stick debate about Overview Responses to MBH Some thoughts on Disclosure Wegman and North Reports for Newbies Links Acronyms Latex Symbols MBH 98 Steve s Public Data Archive WDCP Wegman Reply to Stupak Wegman Report Weblogs and resources Ross McKitrick Surface Stations Archives Archives Select Month February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007

    Original URL path: http://climateaudit.org/tag/yang/ (2016-02-08)
    Open archived version from archive



  •