Message from discussion McKintyre & McKitrick publish again !
Subject: Re: McKintyre & McKitrick publish again !
From: Thomas Palm <Thomas.P...@chello.removethis.se>
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:58:14 GMT
X-Trace: amstwist00 1107439094 188.8.131.52 (Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:58:14 MET)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 14:58:14 MET
"peroxisome" <peroxis...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this?
>>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read:
> I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to
> take the word of a (frankly abusive) blog, rather than a peer-reviewed
> journal. You cannot therefore even know if the blog even accurately
> sets out what is in the GRL paper !
Do you have the slightest idea about how many papers are published each
year? How many of them do you have time to read? Just a small fraction. So
the issue here is if the paper by M&M should be one of that fraction. Given
how M&M has screwed up before I'm not surprised if people who aren't
exactly in the field of making these reconstructions give it a pass.
> I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes
> several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect.
>>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98.
> An interesting choice of words
>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, it *doesn't
>>matter* because things have advanced since then.
> I have to say I am thoroughly fascinated by your approach to science.
> You are saying it *doesn't matter* if MM show that MBH'98 (and hence
> '99) is defective, and it has to be withdrawn. MM's specific charge is
> that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get
> a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is
> correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.
If MBH is wrong that doesn't mean that MM's reconstruction is right. I
don't think even M&M claim that their reconstruction is correct, only that
they have shown that MBH is wrong. Thus if MBH should turn out to be wrong
we will have to use the other estimates, which aren't all that different.
> You and I differ. I think that facts -or data- are quite important.
All facts, or only a selected subset?