Disclosure and due diligence - McIntyre op ed

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 15, 2005, 8:14:46 PM2/15/05
to
[Source: Steve McIntyre, "Show us the data: The audit trails and due
diligence of the corporate world are lacking in the science that
supports climate change", Financial Post (Canada), February 15, 2005, p.
FP23]

I have spent much of the past two years analyzing and reconstructing
some of the basic studies used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in
turn, to promote policies on climate change. It started as a hobby and
it evolved into a full-time avocation, resulting to date in three
peer-reviewed publications, which Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, the
National Post and The Wall Street Journal have recently reported on.

Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral exploration
business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the micro-cap
exploration business and have a great deal of practical experience in
dealing with prospectus and securities issues. In a corporate world,
there is simply no question about providing audit trails, and while they
can take many different forms, they all serve the purpose of ensuring
the validity of information used for investment decisions. In addition
to familiar forms of financial audit trails, the splitting and retention
of drill cores is a form of audit trail in the exploration business. In
my opinion, the absence of drill core at the Bre-X exploration site, if
publicly known, would have alarmed investors long prior to the final
demise.

The 2001 IPCC report produced findings that have guided investment
decisions, which vastly exceed the sums involved in even the largest
financial scandals of recent years. Since the IPCC leaned heavily on a
novel approach called a "multiproxy climate study" and in particular the
"hockey stick graph" of Mann et al. that purported to show extraordinary
climate change, this is where I've focused my attention. An audit trail
in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the authors
and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle,
these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived.

Yet, none of the major multiproxy studies have anything remotely like a
complete due diligence packages and most have none at all. The author of
one of the most quoted studies [Crowley and Lowery, 2000] told me that
he has "misplaced" his data. In the case of the Mann et al [1998, 1999]
study, used for the IPCC's "hockey stick" graph, Mann was initially
unable to remember where the data was located, then provided inaccurate
data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent
with previously published material, etc. In addition to the lack of due
diligence packages, authors typically refuse to make their source code
and data available for verification, even with a specific request.

Even after inaccuracies in a major study had been proven, when we sought
source code, the original journal (Nature) and the original funding
agency (the U.S. National Science Foundation) refused to intervene. In
the opinion of the latter, the code is Mann's personal commercial
property. Mann recently told The Wall Street Journal that "giving them
the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these
people employ." My first request for source code was a very simple
request and could in no way be construed as "intimidation." However, the
issue neatly illustrates the disconnect.

IPCC proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have
been "peer reviewed." However, peer review for climate publications,
even by eminent journals such as Nature or Science, is typically a quick
unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually
close colleagues of the author. It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to
actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a
journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the
source code and supporting calculations. The editor said no one had ever
asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. There is
nothing at the journal peer review stage in climate publications that is
remotely like an audit. It's my view that this is all the more reason
why source code and data should be archived.

There is a great deal of public misconception of the forms of due
diligence actually carried out by the IPCC. Although the IPCC and
similar agencies have many meetings and committees (usually in nice
places), they do not carry out any audit or verification activities.
While insiders have long known this, it was recently admitted in written
answers by the author of the hockey stick study (Michael Mann) to the
U.S. Senate in the fall of 2003. "It is distinctly against the mission
of the IPCC to 'carry out independent programs,' " Mann wrote. Thus, if
a paper has passed the cursory journal peer review process, there may
not be any subsequent hurdles prior to adoption by the IPCC.

Through my own checking, I found that the calculations behind the most
famous IPCC graph -- the 1,000-year climate hockey stick -- contained a
serious calculation error that invalidates the results. In this case,
the methodology had been inaccurately described in the journal
publication. I also found there had been an influential but unreported
alteration to a key data series, where the alteration had been disguised
by a (perhaps unintentional) misrepresentation of the start date of the
underlying data. The math involved is not particularly sophisticated:
The errors would have been discovered long ago had there been even
routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of
dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
thousands of people working full time on this issue just in Canada, it
was nobody's job to check if the IPCC's main piece of evidence was right.

IPCC's inattentiveness to verification is exacerbated by the lack of
independence between authors with strong vested interests in previously
published intellectual positions and IPCC section authors. For example,
Michael Mann had published an academic article announcing that the 1990s
were the warmest decade in human history. He then became IPCC section
author for the critical section surveying climate history of the last
millennium, adopting the very graph used in his own paper on behalf of
IPCC. For someone used to processes where prospectuses require
qualifying reports from independent geologists, the lack of independence
is simply breathtaking and a recipe for problems, regardless of the
reasons initially prompting this strange arrangement.

It seems to me that prospectus-like disclosure must become the standard
in climate science, certainly for documents like IPCC reports (which are
like scientific prospectuses), but even for journals. In business,
"full, true and plain disclosure" is a control on stock promoters. While
it may not always be successful, it gives an enforcement mechanism.
There is no such standard in climate science. In the Mann study there
are important examples of pertinent adverse results, known to the
authors, which were not reported. In fairness, the journals do not
require authors to warrant full, true and plain disclosure and there is
little guidance to such authors as to what is required reporting and
what is not required.

I've found that scientists strongly resent any attempt to verify their
results. One of the typical reactions is: Don't check our studies, do
your own study. I don't think that businesses like being checked either,
but one of the preconditions of being allowed to operate is that they
are checked. Many of the most highly paid professionals in our society
-- securities lawyers, auditors -- earn much of their income simply by
verifying other people's results.

Businesses developed checks and balances because other peoples' money
was involved, not because businessmen are more virtuous than academics.
Back when paleoclimate research had little implication outside academic
seminar rooms, the lack of any adequate control procedures probably
didn't matter much. However, now that huge public policy decisions are
based, at least in part, on such studies, sophisticated procedural
controls need to be developed and imposed. Climate scientists cannot
expect to be the beneficiaries of public money and to influence public
policy without also accepting the responsibility of providing much more
adequate disclosure and due diligence.

Copyright 2005 National Post. All Rights Reserved

Roger Coppock

unread,
Feb 16, 2005, 3:08:11 AM2/16/05
to
"In a corporate world, there is simply no question about providing
audit trails . . ."
Tell that to former ENRON, Worldcom, and Tyco shareholders.


"An audit trail
in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the
authors
and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle,
these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived. "

The data from my publications are stored on 1/2 inch
mini-tape reels, a technology that evaporated 20 years
ago. So much for the principle that these things are
easily buttoned up and archived.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 16, 2005, 10:09:00 AM2/16/05
to
In article <1108541291.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:

> "In a corporate world, there is simply no question about providing
> audit trails . . ."
> Tell that to former ENRON, Worldcom, and Tyco shareholders.

I think your analogy is apt in this case. Thanks for that.

> "An audit trail
> in this case is easily defined: the data in the form used by the
> authors
> and the computer scripts used to generate the results. In principle,
> these can be easily buttoned up and publicly archived. "
>
> The data from my publications are stored on 1/2 inch
> mini-tape reels, a technology that evaporated 20 years
> ago. So much for the principle that these things are
> easily buttoned up and archived.

You're mistaking (a) ensuring historical accessibility with (b)
providing audit trail contemporaneous with publishing of results.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Coby Beck

unread,
Feb 16, 2005, 6:12:46 PM2/16/05
to

"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-4DA...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> [Source: Steve McIntyre, "Show us the data: The audit trails and due
> diligence of the corporate world are lacking in the science that
> supports climate change", Financial Post (Canada), February 15, 2005, p.
> FP23]

This is food for thought, it may be that such "audit trails" become a
requirement of climate research that effects policy desicions. But I don't
think it will aid the quest for truth at all. It will only provide
semi-credible ammunition to every imaginable point of view and drag the
debate completely into the mainstream media where truth is the first thing
to be thrown out the window.

I would like to see a credible case made for the idea that climate research
is completely corrupt and a sham before agreeing that it is necessary to let
the "skeptics" have at all the internal detail.

Certainly my experience here is that the sceptic side of this issue thrives
on making noise and avoiding reasoned discourse. My experience with this
issues treatment in the American mainstream media is that there is no
attempt to investigate only parrot every fashionable commentator. Allowing
every non-climatologist access to all the nitty-gritty will only allow these
mechanisms to function with disasterous efficacy.

At the same time, it is hard justify not disclosing what ever anyone wants
to see.

I don't know what the conventions are in the science world when patents and
industrial secrets are not involved.

> routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of
> dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
> dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the

Can anyone give me any stats or evidence of any kind that this is not a
completely ridiculous contention? Then again, he did specify "exploration".

> I've found that scientists strongly resent any attempt to verify their

It is worth noting that there is ample reason to believe this is a strongly
personal experience belonging much more to Mr. McIntyre than to science.
Again, I don't really know what is normal.

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")


Roger Coppock

unread,
Feb 16, 2005, 8:02:45 PM2/16/05
to
> > routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of
> > dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect

> > dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the

> Can anyone give me any stats or evidence of any kind that this is not
a
> completely ridiculous contention?  Then again, he did specify
"exploration"."

Ah, yes, the "Climate Change Industry!" We've seen widely
differing estimates of the dollar size of this mythical beast on
the this forum over the years. David Ball has said that the
only way some of the larger figures can be realized is by
claiming weather forecasting costs too. We'll never know if
David is right because the fossil fools have never provided a
rigid definition with a breakdown of this paranoid fantasy of
theirs. (I've always wondered what the sock ticker symbols
of some of the big players are. ;-] )

Raymond Arritt

unread,
Feb 16, 2005, 8:34:43 PM2/16/05
to
Coby Beck wrote:

> This is food for thought, it may be that such "audit trails" become a
> requirement of climate research that effects policy desicions. But I don't
> think it will aid the quest for truth at all. It will only provide
> semi-credible ammunition to every imaginable point of view and drag the
> debate completely into the mainstream media where truth is the first thing
> to be thrown out the window.

More to the point, the cost in time and money to comply with
requirements for a formal audit trail would take away from the resources
available to do the actual research. Whether this consequence of
McIntyre's proposal is intended or unintended, one can only speculate.

> I would like to see a credible case made for the idea that climate research
> is completely corrupt and a sham before agreeing that it is necessary to let
> the "skeptics" have at all the internal detail.

Most of the stuff we use is publicly available anyway. Some examples:

You can get the source code for the NCAR CCSM from here:
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/
(Notice how they state "Numerous multi-century control runs have been
conducted at low, medium, and high resolutions and are available to the
general public for examination and analysis.")

You can get the code for the GISS GCM here:
ftp://ftp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/modelE/modelE1.tar.gz

You can download GCM output used in the last IPCC report at:
http://cera-www.dkrz.de/IPCC_DDC/IS92a/index.html

You can sign up to download model results currently being analyzed for
the upcoming IPCC report here:
https://esg.llnl.gov:8443/home/publicHomePage.do

I could go on and on, but you get the point. McIntyre insinuates that
there's some dark conspiracy to keep the workings of climate research
hidden from public view, but that simply doesn't square with reality.

James Annan

unread,
Feb 16, 2005, 11:21:47 PM2/16/05
to
Steve McIntyre has found a molehill and is doing his best to make a
mountain out of it. I do not mean to be unduly critical of him in those
words - I understand the frustration that can occur when one finds what
appears to be a significant problem, only to be brushed off in a manner
that seems to be rude and dismissive. IMO (and IME), scientists are
probably no better and no worse than other types of people in this
respect, they have their own egos and prejudices and do not like to be
told that they are wrong. My own experience in this area is already in
the public domain and does not need repeating again.

Although it is only natural that McIntyre should try to talk up the
importance of his work, he seems to completely misunderstand the
scientific process in his talk of audit trails and replication. Sure,
work should be reproducible, and it is embarrassing for those who find
errors in their work or, what is worse, have errors pointed out by
others. Peer review is indeed a rather superficial check on the
validity of the work, and can certainly be subverted by a determined
effort at dishonesty. But scientific research is already subject to a
far more relevant and stringent test than he advocates. It is an
intensely competitive and adversarial process, with rivals continually
trying to improve on each others' work. One could even characterise
this as "prove each other wrong", but generally it takes the form of
incremental advances that modify the previous results, rather than
completely overturning them. Results that are strongly divergent from
the existing status quo will certainly be carefully checked in
subsequent research. But, except in the most exceptional cases, merely
checking that a rival had done their sums right is very unlikely to
reap any real benefits - even if some error or inaccuracy is found in
the calculation or description, it may well not impact significantly on
their results[1], and if no error is found, then this replication still
provides no assessment of the validity of the underlying assumptions
and methodology of the work. However, the alternative - which is how
science actually works - of developing new and improved methodologies,
more accurate data sets and better models actually provides a much more
rigorous check of the correctness of the underlying assumptions and
conclusions of earlier research, which is, after all, the main goal.

I have no direct knowledge of the IPCC process, but McIntyre's picture
of climate research consisting of a cosy coterie of pals all working
towards supporting a "consensus" and patting each other on the back
certainly doesn't ring true with me. The "consensus", such as it is,
represents the equilibrium in a dynamic tension with different people
pulling in different directions. Taking the example of the climate's
equilibrium response to 2xCO2, the consensus view of ~2-6C is not
because everyone one is trying to agree on this range, but because
no-one has yet found any credible cause for disagreement, despite
numerous alternative models and methods (the range itself represents
the amount of disagreement, to a certain extent). We can see in eg the
recent climateprediction.net results, and the comment published on
realclimate.org, evidence of the dynamical tension underlying that
consensus view.

So while I have some sympathy for McIntyre's cause, I disagree with his
conclusions. While his molehill should not just be ignored, it must
also be kept in perspective.

James
[1] It may be worth noting James's Law of computer bugs - the
undiscovered bug probably doesn't matter. FWIW, I found a bug in code I
used for a recent publication, and correcting it just makes the results
marginally more accurate. The bugs that made the method fail completely
were corrected at a much earlier stage :-)

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 16, 2005, 11:26:46 PM2/16/05
to
James Annan wrote:
SNIP.....

>
> So while I have some sympathy for McIntyre's cause, I disagree with his
> conclusions. While his molehill should not just be ignored, it must
> also be kept in perspective.
>
> James
> [1] It may be worth noting James's Law of computer bugs - the
> undiscovered bug probably doesn't matter. FWIW, I found a bug in code I
> used for a recent publication, and correcting it just makes the results
> marginally more accurate. The bugs that made the method fail completely
> were corrected at a much earlier stage :-)
>
I/ve had much experience of this both in my own work, and in the results
of others. The most frustrating one was a result I KNEW was wrong, but
could not prove it. When I finally located the code in a PhD thesis, I
found about 10 errors, and together they pretty much balanced out!

josh halpern

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 6:22:02 AM2/17/05
to
Coby Beck <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message

>> routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of


>> dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
>> dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the

>Can anyone give me any stats or evidence of any kind that this is not a
>completely ridiculous contention? Then again, he did specify "exploration".

I'd be pretty sure that if you include oil expl, the money spent far
exceeds that on cl ch science.

-W.

--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!

James Annan

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 7:00:28 AM2/17/05
to

w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:

> Coby Beck <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>routine checking. It still amazes me that for all the billions of
>>>dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
>>>dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
>
>
>>Can anyone give me any stats or evidence of any kind that this is not a
>>completely ridiculous contention? Then again, he did specify "exploration".
>
>
> I'd be pretty sure that if you include oil expl, the money spent far
> exceeds that on cl ch science.

A few seconds of googling found:

"Wood Mackenzie says the top-10 oil groups spent about $8bn combined on
exploration last year, but this only led to commercial discoveries with
a net present value of slightly less than $4bn. The previous two years
show similar, though less dramatic, shortfalls."

I mentioned NERC's annual budget recently - around 300m UKP, although
only a proportion of this is spent on climate change research (it is one
of 3 "priority areas", so I would guess around 1/3). Of course there
will be some other UK sources of funding in this area, but NERC must be
the big one.

Certainly "dwarfs" looks likely to be far wrong (assuming that means a
factor of 10 or more, say). It seems conceivable to me that climate
change research might be somewhat comparable to oil exploration, but
probably substantially smaller (how many big players are there, beyond
USA, Japan, and a few European countries?). Of course, most of the oil
has already been discovered (as the above quote indicates). The total
global climate change research budget is certainly nothing more than a
spit in the bucket of the oil _profits_, let alone budget.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 9:04:16 AM2/17/05
to
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Certainly "dwarfs" looks likely to be far wrong (assuming that means a
>factor of 10 or more, say). It seems conceivable to me that climate
>change research might be somewhat comparable to oil exploration, but
>probably substantially smaller (how many big players are there, beyond
>USA, Japan, and a few European countries?). Of course, most of the oil
>has already been discovered (as the above quote indicates). The total
>global climate change research budget is certainly nothing more than a
>spit in the bucket of the oil _profits_, let alone budget.

How about if you included the cost of the Earth Simulator :-)

Michael Tobis

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 11:15:16 AM2/17/05
to
Global change broadly construed amounts to about 2 billion/year in the
US of late. This includes short term climate change (drought etc.)
ozone layer stuff, agricultural and infractructure impacts of climate
change whether natural or human-caused, etc. etc.,

It apparently does not include (as far as I can tell) NASA's earth
observation budget.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-gen.htm


This sounds like a big number, but it amounts to about eight dollars
per capita, which I'd guess is about a thousandth part of per capita
expenditures on energy (I suspect other raw materials are relatively
small). So the question comes down to what proportion of energy costs
are attributable to "exploration".

mt

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 11:53:03 AM2/17/05
to
In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote:

I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
specified _mineral_ exploration.

Coby Beck

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 2:24:26 PM2/17/05
to
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-F53...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,

> I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
> specified _mineral_ exploration.

Any idea why he chose "mineral exploration" as his measuring stick for
"climate change industry"? It seems an obscure reference. I am also
curious as to how he defines and tallies "climate change industry" spending.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 3:03:11 PM2/17/05
to
In article <Kb6Rd.3095$%y.1235@clgrps12>,
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:

> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:steve.schulin-F53...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
> > specified _mineral_ exploration.
>
> Any idea why he chose "mineral exploration" as his measuring stick for

> "climate change industry"? It seems an obscure reference. ...

He was discussing how the mineral exploration industry has tougher
disclosure requirements when promoting investment than does climate
science. His experience in hard-rock-mineral industry prompted him to
wonder about the data behind the hockey stick.

> .... I am also

> curious as to how he defines and tallies "climate change industry" spending.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 3:58:15 PM2/17/05
to
Why happy? That's like reporting health care costs and not including the
cost of pharmaceuticals? However, if you look at

http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf

Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
world costs. You can do the math

In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. BTW, there
appears to be a renewed effort to finding diamond mines in NA.

josh halpern

James Annan

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 4:34:44 PM2/17/05
to
w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:

> James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Certainly "dwarfs" looks likely to be far wrong (assuming that means a
>>factor of 10 or more, say). It seems conceivable to me that climate
>>change research might be somewhat comparable to oil exploration, but
>>probably substantially smaller (how many big players are there, beyond
>>USA, Japan, and a few European countries?). Of course, most of the oil
>>has already been discovered (as the above quote indicates). The total
>>global climate change research budget is certainly nothing more than a
>>spit in the bucket of the oil _profits_, let alone budget.
>
>
> How about if you included the cost of the Earth Simulator :-)

I nearly did - but at $400m over several years, divided between climate
research, solid earth (quakes) and a number of other engineering
projects it isn't _that_ huge an investment on the global scale. Plus,
it was really just a subsidy to the computer industry :-) I guess the
annual related staff budget will be only a very few % of the capital cost.

James Annan

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 4:38:45 PM2/17/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:

> He was discussing how the mineral exploration industry has tougher
> disclosure requirements when promoting investment than does climate
> science. His experience in hard-rock-mineral industry prompted him to
> wonder about the data behind the hockey stick.

Well he can rest assured that the budget of the "mineral exploration
industry", however he cares to define it, dwarfs the budget of the
Japanese effort in probabilistic climate prediction.

For what it's worth.

But since when has "mineral" excluded oil?

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 4:59:07 PM2/17/05
to
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Plus, it was really just a subsidy to the computer industry :-)

I didn't think you were allowed to say that in public :-)

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 5:59:34 PM2/17/05
to
In article <37kh3nF...@individual.net>,
James Annan <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Steve Schulin wrote:
>
> > He was discussing how the mineral exploration industry has tougher
> > disclosure requirements when promoting investment than does climate
> > science. His experience in hard-rock-mineral industry prompted him to
> > wonder about the data behind the hockey stick.
>
> Well he can rest assured that the budget of the "mineral exploration
> industry", however he cares to define it, dwarfs the budget of the
> Japanese effort in probabilistic climate prediction.
>
> For what it's worth.
>
> But since when has "mineral" excluded oil?

Never. Yet, standard industry classifications have long distinguished
between oil and mineral industries. For relevant example from the latest
USA classification scheme, see
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND523910.HTM

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

>
> James

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 6:13:23 PM2/17/05
to
In article <Hz7Rd.30796$wc.21814@trnddc07>,
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Global change broadly construed amounts to about 2 billion/year in the
> >>US of late. This includes short term climate change (drought etc.)
> >>ozone layer stuff, agricultural and infractructure impacts of climate
> >>change whether natural or human-caused, etc. etc.,
> >>
> >>It apparently does not include (as far as I can tell) NASA's earth
> >>observation budget.
> >>
> >>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-gen.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>This sounds like a big number, but it amounts to about eight dollars
> >>per capita, which I'd guess is about a thousandth part of per capita
> >>expenditures on energy (I suspect other raw materials are relatively
> >>small). So the question comes down to what proportion of energy costs
> >>are attributable to "exploration".
> >>mt
> >
> > I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
> > specified _mineral_ exploration.
> >
> Why happy? That's like reporting health care costs and not including the

> cost of pharmaceuticals? ...

Nah. It's more like counting birdbrains.

> ... However, if you look at


>
> http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
>
> Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
> Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
> That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
> explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
> world costs. You can do the math
>
> In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
> exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
> particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
> coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research

> budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. ...

LOL - I've wondered why so many (birdbrains) have tried to paint
McIntyre as an oil industry insider. I'm glad to see you place a high
value on precision of language. I don't recall you voicing same when the
discussion was about an MBH98 table column labeled "first year
available" or somesuch, when a better description would have been "first
year we chose to use".

> ... BTW, there

> appears to be a renewed effort to finding diamond mines in NA.
>
> josh halpern

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

James Annan

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 8:15:05 PM2/17/05
to

And if any casual reader of Canada's Financial Post is unaware of this
technical distinction, then that is of course entirely their own fault
and not something that the author could reasonably have been expected
to foresee and clarify.

Although the publication is not peer-reviewed, anyone who is looking
for an example of the sort of thing I was meaning by "Peer review is


indeed a rather superficial check on the validity of the work, and can

certainly be subverted by a determined effort at dishonesty" need look
no further than this. And frankly I don't give a shit about whatever
semantic games you try to play about how it could actually be true if
interpreted in a narrow technical sense: it certainly misled everyone
here, and is obvious to everyone with a clue and a modicum of honesty
that it will mislead the vast majority of casual readers.

James

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 8:53:40 PM2/17/05
to
In article <1108689305.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"James Annan" <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:

LOL - all you sci.* afficionados who think of oil/gas industry when
someone mentions mineral exploration industry, please take a moment to
chime in.

As to the Financial Post audience, I suspect that they're quite
comfortable in distinguishing between the minerals index and the oil/gas
index mentioned by fund manager at
http://www.tdassetmanagement.com/Content/Products/MutualFunds/Funds/p_Fun
dCard.asp?FID=6168&PID=1&SI=3

>
> James

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 9:25:44 PM2/17/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> In article <Hz7Rd.30796$wc.21814@trnddc07>,
> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1108656916.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Global change broadly construed amounts to about 2 billion/year in the
>>>>US of late. This includes short term climate change (drought etc.)
>>>>ozone layer stuff, agricultural and infractructure impacts of climate
>>>>change whether natural or human-caused, etc. etc.,
>>>>
>>>>It apparently does not include (as far as I can tell) NASA's earth
>>>>observation budget.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-gen.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This sounds like a big number, but it amounts to about eight dollars
>>>>per capita, which I'd guess is about a thousandth part of per capita
>>>>expenditures on energy (I suspect other raw materials are relatively
>>>>small). So the question comes down to what proportion of energy costs
>>>>are attributable to "exploration".
>>>>mt
>>>
>>>I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
>>>specified _mineral_ exploration.
>>
>>Why happy? That's like reporting health care costs and not including the
>>cost of pharmaceuticals? ...
>
> Nah. It's more like counting birdbrains.
>
Well, let us see...You, 1, hanson 3.5, james 4.5, per, but I jest?

>
>>... However, if you look at
>>
>>http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
>>
>>Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
>>Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
>>That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
>>explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
>>world costs. You can do the math
>>
>>In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
>>exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
>>particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
>>coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
>>budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. ...
>
> LOL - I've wondered why so many (birdbrains) have tried to paint
> McIntyre as an oil industry insider.

I gather you accept the numbers given in the URL. Which was my point.
You now attempt to move the shell.

I made no comment about McIntyre being an oil industry insider, however,
I did point out that on the evidence the statement he made was wrong,
even using the arbitrary exclusion that he made. In fact, McIntyre is
the one who brought that up

"Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral
exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the
micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical
experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. "

I will return to this below. Now if you want to put thoughts into my
fingers, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take you very seriously.

> I'm glad to see you place a high value on precision of language.

No, I just don't much like prevarication and clever twisting.

> I don't recall you voicing same when the
> discussion was about an MBH98 table column labeled "first year
> available" or somesuch, when a better description would have been "first
> year we chose to use".
>

Or first year recommended by the compilers of the data. OTOH, there was
a clear pointer to the data set and a quick reading of it revealed what
the issue was. If I were per like, I could probably pick out some
sentence in that paper which said something like (we only used complete
data sets with uninterrupted series, or series where there was only an
occasional year missing, quite in agreement with what was done. I see
no reference to a source for McIntyre's statement. Out of curiosity let
us look at his statement on this point:

"It still amazes me that for all the billions of
dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the

thousands of people working full time on this issue just in Canada, it
was nobody's job to check if the IPCC's main piece of evidence was right."

We see from the URL that I posted that the amount of money spent on
mineral non oil and gas exploration worldwide is of the order of $30
billion, about 3 B$ of that being in the US.

PS you might ask why exploration costs are falling for oil and gas

josh halpern

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 9:37:38 PM2/17/05
to
He was still wrong.

josh halpern

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 10:58:08 PM2/17/05
to
In article <ImcRd.9707$uc.6178@trnddc09>,
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:

As long as you get the point, I'm delighted.

> >
> >>... However, if you look at
> >>
> >>http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
> >>
> >>Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
> >>Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
> >>That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
> >>explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
> >>world costs. You can do the math
> >>
> >>In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
> >>exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
> >>particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
> >>coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
> >>budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. ...
> >
> > LOL - I've wondered why so many (birdbrains) have tried to paint
> > McIntyre as an oil industry insider.
>
> I gather you accept the numbers given in the URL. Which was my point.
> You now attempt to move the shell.

I did not follow that aspect of the thread. I'm again delighted, this
time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any shell.
I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.
>
> I made no comment about McIntyre being an oil industry insider,...

That's wonderful.

> ... however,

> I did point out that on the evidence the statement he made was wrong,
> even using the arbitrary exclusion that he made. In fact, McIntyre is
> the one who brought that up
>
> "Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral
> exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the
> micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical
> experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. "
>
> I will return to this below. Now if you want to put thoughts into my
> fingers, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take you very seriously.

Gee whiz, Josh. I've long not expected that you'd publicly endorse the
seriousness of anything I write. Some years ago, back in the early part
of President George W. Bush's first term, you repeatedly accused me of
not having read a blue-ribbon NRC subcommittee report before commenting
on it.

> > I'm glad to see you place a high value on precision of language.
>
> No, I just don't much like prevarication and clever twisting.

Oh.

>
> > I don't recall you voicing same when the
> > discussion was about an MBH98 table column labeled "first year
> > available" or somesuch, when a better description would have been "first
> > year we chose to use".
> >

> Or first year recommended by the compilers of the data. ...

LOL - that would be an interesting set of stories to hear.

> ... OTOH, there was

> a clear pointer to the data set and a quick reading of it revealed what

> the issue was. ...

And the issue was not the "first year available".

> ... If I were per like, I could probably pick out some

> sentence in that paper which said something like (we only used complete
> data sets with uninterrupted series, or series where there was only an

> occasional year missing, quite in agreement with what was done. ...

I'd be most interested if you, or anyone, chose to actually justify that
column heading in the MBH98-related table.

> ... I see

> no reference to a source for McIntyre's statement. Out of curiosity let
> us look at his statement on this point:
>
> "It still amazes me that for all the billions of
> dollars being spent on the climate change industry (which I suspect
> dwarfs the mineral exploration industry in dollar volume), and the
> thousands of people working full time on this issue just in Canada, it
> was nobody's job to check if the IPCC's main piece of evidence was right."
>
> We see from the URL that I posted that the amount of money spent on
> mineral non oil and gas exploration worldwide is of the order of $30
> billion, about 3 B$ of that being in the US.

I took the opportunity to glance at that URL. Are you combining your
eyeballings of various graphs to arrive at these values, for the past 10
or 11 years or so? And have you done similar assessment of climate
science expenditures over same period?

>
> PS you might ask why exploration costs are falling for oil and gas

LOL - and you might answer regardless.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 17, 2005, 11:24:23 PM2/17/05
to
In article <SxcRd.9754$uc.518@trnddc09>,
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:

If so, then he's catching up to realclimate quality: "Scientists [are]
wrong 90% of the time"

[Source: John J. McKetta, "Don't Believe Everything You Read", in
"Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns", edited by Jay H. Lehr
(1992, Van Nostrand Reinhold). Dr. McKetta is professor of chemical
engineering at U Texas-Austin. See p. 344 for the section titled
"Scientists wrong 90% of the time"]

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 11:19:55 AM2/18/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>>>>"Michael Tobis" <m...@3planes.com> wrote:

>>>>>>Global change broadly construed amounts to about 2 billion/year in the
>>>>>>US of late. This includes short term climate change (drought etc.)
>>>>>>ozone layer stuff, agricultural and infractructure impacts of climate
>>>>>>change whether natural or human-caused, etc. etc.,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It apparently does not include (as far as I can tell) NASA's earth
>>>>>>observation budget.
>>>>>>http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/ocp2004-5-budget-gen.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This sounds like a big number, but it amounts to about eight dollars
>>>>>>per capita, which I'd guess is about a thousandth part of per capita
>>>>>>expenditures on energy (I suspect other raw materials are relatively
>>>>>>small). So the question comes down to what proportion of energy costs
>>>>>>are attributable to "exploration".
>>>>>>mt
>>>>>
>>>>>I happily report that McIntyre says he was not referring to oil when he
>>>>>specified _mineral_ exploration.

SNIP....


>>>>... However, if you look at
>>>>
>>>>http://www.unr.edu/mines/smr/workshopfiles_Dec2002/Exploration.pdf
>>>>
>>>>Figure 1 shows the cost of non-fuel exploration in the US (~3 b$) and
>>>>Figure 2 shows the costs for exploration for oil and gas (~20 b$).
>>>>That, of course, leaves coal. OTOH, the continental US is pretty well
>>>>explored, and the costs of non-mineral exploration in the US is ~9% of
>>>>world costs. You can do the math
>>>>
>>>>In short, McIntyre is misleading here, by excluding oil and gas
>>>>exploration he eliminates the major US exploration activity. This is
>>>>particularly egregious because concerns about fossil fuel (including
>>>>coal) combustion are driving a significant part of the climate research
>>>>budget. I expect no better of him and am not disappointed. ...
>>>
>>>LOL - I've wondered why so many (birdbrains) have tried to paint
>>>McIntyre as an oil industry insider.
>>
>>I gather you accept the numbers given in the URL. Which was my point.
>>You now attempt to move the shell.
>
> I did not follow that aspect of the thread.

Then why did you comment on it. You evidently have nothing to add to
the question of whether exploration costs broadly or narrowly construed
exceed the costs of climate research, but you take our time saying
nothing germain in an offensive way

> I'm again delighted, this
> time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any shell.
> I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.

Right, and you are the pooooor wounded soul who complained about the
mean things that Michael said about you. Look, I have shown you
evidence that what MT said was true, and you still insist that what he
said was wrong.


>
>>I made no comment about McIntyre being an oil industry insider,...
>
> That's wonderful.
>

It has NOTHING to do with what I was saying. It is simply a distraction
you have tried to bring in. By the way, do you know that the price of
bananas if you shop carefully is about 0.60 Euro per pound if you could
pay in Euros and if they were priced per kilo?


>>... however,
>>I did point out that on the evidence the statement he made was wrong,
>>even using the arbitrary exclusion that he made. In fact, McIntyre is
>>the one who brought that up
>>
>>"Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral
>>exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the
>>micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical
>>experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. "
>>
>>I will return to this below. Now if you want to put thoughts into my
>>fingers, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take you very seriously.
>
> Gee whiz, Josh. I've long not expected that you'd publicly endorse the
> seriousness of anything I write. Some years ago, back in the early part
> of President George W. Bush's first term, you repeatedly accused me of
> not having read a blue-ribbon NRC subcommittee report before commenting
> on it.
>

Red herring 2. Boo-hoo.


>
>>>I'm glad to see you place a high value on precision of language.
>>
>>No, I just don't much like prevarication and clever twisting.
>
> Oh.
>

More fish cut bait....SNIP....


>>PS you might ask why exploration costs are falling for oil and gas
>
>
> LOL - and you might answer regardless.
>

OK, regardless.

josh halpern

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 11:27:38 AM2/18/05
to

Well, that is pretty good compared to your record. Still as someone
said it is useful to know someone who is always wrong because then you
can figure out what is right. thanks

josh halpern

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 12:23:03 PM2/18/05
to
In article <LAoRd.2160$QQ3.709@trnddc02>,
Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:

I replied quite politely to an aspect that Dr. Tobis brought up. What
was offensive about the one-line post: "I happily report that McIntyre

says he was not referring to oil when he specified _mineral_

exploration." ?

>
> > I'm again delighted, this
> > time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any shell.
> > I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.
>
> Right, and you are the pooooor wounded soul who complained about the
> mean things that Michael said about you. Look, I have shown you
> evidence that what MT said was true, and you still insist that what he
> said was wrong.

He was wrong when he said "So the question comes down to what proportion
of energy costs are attributable to 'exploration'." That was the aspect
I commented on. I've reread your posts to this thread, and have not
noticed you showing evidence that what he said was true in this regard.

> >
> >>I made no comment about McIntyre being an oil industry insider,...
> >
> > That's wonderful.
> >

> It has NOTHING to do with what I was saying. ...

Sure it does. The birdbrained reasoning which prompts some folks to
think oil/gas industry when minerals industry is mentioned is the common
factor.

> ... It is simply a distraction you have tried to bring in. ...

Well, I've been quite patient in waiting for just the right spot to
highlight the repeated attempts by consensus-minded folks to link Mr.
McIntyre with "fossil fuel" industry. I think I found it right here
amongst the replies in this thread I happily started.

> ... By the way, do you know that the price of

> bananas if you shop carefully is about 0.60 Euro per pound if you could
> pay in Euros and if they were priced per kilo?
> >>... however,
> >>I did point out that on the evidence the statement he made was wrong,
> >>even using the arbitrary exclusion that he made. In fact, McIntyre is
> >>the one who brought that up
> >>
> >>"Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral
> >>exploration business. During the last 20 years of this, I worked in the
> >>micro-cap exploration business and have a great deal of practical
> >>experience in dealing with prospectus and securities issues. "
> >>
> >>I will return to this below. Now if you want to put thoughts into my
> >>fingers, go right ahead, but don't expect me to take you very seriously.
> >
> > Gee whiz, Josh. I've long not expected that you'd publicly endorse the
> > seriousness of anything I write. Some years ago, back in the early part
> > of President George W. Bush's first term, you repeatedly accused me of
> > not having read a blue-ribbon NRC subcommittee report before commenting
> > on it.
> >
> Red herring 2. Boo-hoo.

LOL - which notion is it which prompts your reaction? The mention of the
President of the United States of America, or the recollection of your
previous ignorant utterances?

> >
> >>>I'm glad to see you place a high value on precision of language.
> >>
> >>No, I just don't much like prevarication and clever twisting.
> >
> > Oh.
> >
> More fish cut bait....SNIP....
>
>
> >>PS you might ask why exploration costs are falling for oil and gas
> >
> >
> > LOL - and you might answer regardless.
> >
> OK, regardless.
>
> josh halpern

Very truly,

teve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

David Ball

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 1:09:29 PM2/18/05
to

I'm sorry, but you are posting this crap to a science
newsgroup. Mineral exploration does include oil. It is encumbent on
the writer, if he means something else, to make sure that any
differences are clearly stated.

David Ball

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 1:11:37 PM2/18/05
to
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:24:23 -0500, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>
>If so, then he's catching up to realclimate quality: "Scientists [are]
>wrong 90% of the time"

What you are really saying is that realclimate doesn't allow
you to play fast and loose with the truth. I can live with that. This
is an issue that needs honest discourse, not more of the bullshit you
attempt to pass off.


Michael Tobis

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 1:43:44 PM2/18/05
to
> > Global change broadly construed amounts to about 2 billion/year in
the
> > US of late.

One question worth considering is the size of this effort compared to
the size of the energy industry, which of course is the dominant
component of the mining industry. Comparing the size of this effort to
the non-energy component of mining is arbitrary and not especially
meaningful, sort of like comparing a Saturn V to two Statues of Liberty
(I was at the Kennedy Space Center tour recently where they did this).
It's didactically useless to compare the size of two things neither of
which one has an intuitive sense for. (They also compared it to a
football field, which is more useful.)

To make this comparison while leaving the reasonable impression that
one was comparing to something else (oh, I just meant the *head* of the
Statue of Liberty, it's pretty big itself, isn't it?)
is hard to excuse.

The real issue of course is whether this expenditure is reasonable. In
attempting to construe the science of climate change as a conspiracy
one is motivated to tar as much science with one brush as one can. The
idea that two billion dollars is being dedicated to "global warming,
yes or no" is simply absurdly incorrect. I just came out of a detailed
talk about comparing Greenland and Antarctic ice cores, a question with
numerous implications in understanding the earth. We didn't talk about
"Kyoto" and we didn't talk about anthropogenic change. We talked about
the holocene and the pliestocene, and how the ice core data drives our
understanding of the relationship between the temperature patterns in
the two hemispheres. Should we be doing this?

Another way to look at it is to compare the Earth vs Mars. What is the
appropriate proportion of funds allocated to the study of the planet we
live on versus that of the next planet over? Let me say clearly that I
have nothing against studying Mars; I know people who do it and wish
them well. I just wonder what the appropriate balance is between
studying the planet we (and all higher life as far as we know) live on
versus some other planet that happens to be nearby.

NASA's budget is $16.5 billion, eight times that of USGCRP. I'm having
trouble finidng out what portion is allocated to the Mars mission
business. The NASA budget is fairly opaque at first glance.

http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

However, I believe that McIntyre has a point in suggesting that science
as a whole be held to standards common in industry. I would also
suggest that industry as a whole be held to standards common in
science. Having crossed the line a number of times myself, I find the
severe reluctance of these sectors to learn from one another to be
discouraging to say the least. Picking out the one science whose
results you don't like for a special attack on these grounds, though,
is disingenuous.

mt

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 2:52:34 PM2/18/05
to
In article <umbc119r2bkibsq0v...@4ax.com>,
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

When I googled "define:mineral", I did indeed notice that a small
minority of definitions explicitly include oil. More of the definitions
explicitly restricted mineral to hard stuff. I have no doubt that
McIntyre referred to his industry in language commonly understood. Any
substance with a dose-response curve meets the definition of "drug". Yet
the phrase "War on Drugs" is understood by hundreds of millions of folks
as referring to "War on (some) drugs". Does your response here mean that
you think of oil/gas industry when someone mentions mineral exploration
industry? If so, you are the only one to admit it so far.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 3:26:57 PM2/18/05
to
In article <crbc11di6vc669omn...@4ax.com>,
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

LOL - I don't begrudge them posting only what they want others to see.
It's their space. I appreciate that they let one mention of "dubious
predictive value" be seen (and one mention of the inherent smearing out
of variability by multiproxy approaches which combine time series, each
with its own dating error). That a subsequent post of mine (republished
below) did not make it past their gatekeeping is interesting. They let
ad hominems flow like glaciers, but kept substantive stuff off the page.

Here's that post that never got published. It was a reply related to
comment #3 of the thread specified:

[[reply submitted (but not posted) 11 pm - 1/27/05 - to thread What If ...
the "Hockey Stick" Were Wrong? --
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114 ]]

That non-E&E reference for Loehle should have been Ecological Modelling
171:433. Here's an excerpt which describes the concept: "The standard
assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports, is that over
a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend
to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000) and thus the null model for
climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some
autocorrelated noise. Any warming trends in excess of that expected from
normal climatic variability are then assumed to be due to anthropogenic
effects. This assumption is largely based on reconstructions (e.g.
Crowley, 2000; Jones, 1998; Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Overpeck et al.,
1997), which show a very flat long-term temperature pattern (with little
variation in the running mean, and a slight cooling trend), but Broecker
(2001) has recently argued that the flatness of this reconstruction
results from the inappropriate use of tree-ring data. It is also likely
that when time series with large dating errors are averaged, any cyclic
patterns will be smeared, and will cancel out. If there are in fact
possible underlying climate trends, then it is not valid to conclude
that a deviation from an average climate is necessarily a 'detection'
(see Risbey et al., 2000) of an anthropogenic effect."

Your dismissive approach to Loehle's E&E paper is interesting. I happily
rephrase my comment as a question: "Have any of the multiproxy theorists
published the results of an investigation into the inherent smearing of
variability when combining time series each with its own dating error?"

I would be most pleased to learn why you claim that the SAR was
specifying anything about greenhouse gases in the since-famous statement
that "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human
influence on global climate". To me, it seems clear enough that the body
of the SAR stresses the ambiguity of the results from attempts to detect
CO2 signal in climate as discussed in section 8.4.2.1 -- quite a
contrast with the discussion of anthropogenic sulphate aerosol signals
in the next section.

--- END SBS COMMENT TO REALCLIMATE ---

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 6:16:13 PM2/18/05
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>That non-E&E reference for Loehle should have been Ecological Modelling
>171:433. Here's an excerpt which describes the concept: "The standard
>assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports, is that over
>a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend
>to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000) and thus the null model for
>climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some
>autocorrelated noise.

This seems a very primitive view of detection and attribution.

It also seems to be something of a misrepresentation of Risbey (2000),
assuming its http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~ris/publications/daproto.pdf

>It is also likely
>that when time series with large dating errors are averaged...

But the MBH (and most others) don't contain large dating errors.

Coby Beck

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 7:10:06 PM2/18/05
to

"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-CCD...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> When I googled "define:mineral", I did indeed notice that a small
> minority of definitions explicitly include oil. More of the definitions
> explicitly restricted mineral to hard stuff. I have no doubt that
> McIntyre referred to his industry in language commonly understood. Any

Thanks for showing me that define: trick with google! That was new to me..

I think this whole digression is not very useful. Words have many shades of
meaning and different standards of precision depending on context.
McKintyre was not writing a research paper and was not posting to a sci*
newsgroup so mineral can mean just non-liquids mined from the ground and
does not need to define it. We as readers should be careful. Initially I
did not even register the "exploration" qualifier. Mea culpa.

I brought it up because it was obviously a rhetorical device intended to
give the impression that the global Climate Change Industry (tm) is huge.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 9:12:29 PM2/18/05
to

> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >That non-E&E reference for Loehle should have been Ecological Modelling
> >171:433. Here's an excerpt which describes the concept: "The standard
> >assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports, is that over
> >a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend
> >to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000) and thus the null model for
> >climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some
> >autocorrelated noise.
>
> This seems a very primitive view of detection and attribution.
>
> It also seems to be something of a misrepresentation of Risbey (2000),
> assuming its http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~ris/publications/daproto.pdf
>
> >It is also likely
> >that when time series with large dating errors are averaged...
>
> But the MBH (and most others) don't contain large dating errors.
>
> -W.

Hi W -

When a post like mine never actually gets approved for being included on
your site, what happened to it? Did other principals there likely read
it besides whomever was "on duty"? It was, except for correction to
Ecological Modelling citation, a direct reply to comments you had made.
Is it correct to say that you blocked, from realclimate.org, the post
which you here partly reproduce and comment upon?

As it turns out, your assumption about which paper is Risbey et al.
(2000) is correct. Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or
the E&E paper?

As for Risbey et al., I'm delighted to see that it's freely available on
the web. Thanks for posting the URL. For those who might wish to assess
your charge related to misrepresentation, I urge them to check out
section 4.2 of the Risbey et al. paper, which includes "In specifying
the spread of the distribution for f(N1) of the global mean temperature
over the past 100 yr, experts frequently make reference to proxy
reconstructions of this quantity over multiple century time scales (e.g.
Mann et al. 1998, Briffa & Osborn 1999). While proxy reconstructions are
limited in global coverage and infer temperatures indirectly, they are
invoked to provide loose bounds on the potential magnitude of
century-scale natural variability. The expected mean trend in
century-long series of (internally generated) natural variability is
typically zero unless there are reasons to expect a prolonged cooling or
warming on this scale. The proxy records indicate some natural cooling
over the past millenium (Mann et al. 1999), though this is loosely
attributed to astronomical forcing, which is an external forcing. Since
the mean of the expected trend in natural variability is close to zero
on 100 yr time scales, the spread and tails are the more critical
aspects of this distribution for detection studies. Expert 11's
distribution for natural variability, f(N1), is shown by the dashed line
in Fig. 2. It has a mean of zero (assumes no natural long-term warming
or cooling) with a standard deviation of 0.2 K. From this distribution
we would conclude that century-long temperature excursions of +0.5 K can
occur naturally, but with low probability." Your charge related to
misrepresentation tends to buttress my characterization of real(bias).
Thanks for that, too.

As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article, in
which Loehle discusses the matter further, including some discussion of
Mann et al. 1998 and Mann et al. 1999. He concludes, BTW, that Soon et
al's approach is much more informative, regarding variability, than
multiproxy studies which combine time series, each with their own dating
error. The E&E citation is:

Energy & Environment · Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004,, pp. 1-10
USING HISTORICAL CLIMATE DATA TO EVALUATE CLIMATE TRENDS: ISSUES OF
STATISTICAL INFERENCE
Craig Loehle, Ph.D.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 9:24:14 PM2/18/05
to
In article <ytvRd.22$AO.14@clgrps12>, "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca>
wrote:

> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message

> news:steve.schulin-CCD...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > When I googled "define:mineral", I did indeed notice that a small
> > minority of definitions explicitly include oil. More of the definitions
> > explicitly restricted mineral to hard stuff. I have no doubt that
> > McIntyre referred to his industry in language commonly understood. Any
>
> Thanks for showing me that define: trick with google! That was new to me..

You're very welcome. It is a neat feature.


>
> I think this whole digression is not very useful. Words have many shades of
> meaning and different standards of precision depending on context.
> McKintyre was not writing a research paper and was not posting to a sci*
> newsgroup so mineral can mean just non-liquids mined from the ground and
> does not need to define it. We as readers should be careful. Initially I
> did not even register the "exploration" qualifier. Mea culpa.
>
> I brought it up because it was obviously a rhetorical device intended to
> give the impression that the global Climate Change Industry (tm) is huge.

When I first read that line in the Finanacial Post op ed, here's the
point I thought was being emphasized: the burden of disclosure and due
diligence is not so onerous to an industry the size of the climate
change research industry.

David Ball

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 10:17:51 PM2/18/05
to
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:26:57 -0500, Steve Schulin
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>In article <crbc11di6vc669omn...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:24:23 -0500, Steve Schulin
>> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >If so, then he's catching up to realclimate quality: "Scientists [are]
>> >wrong 90% of the time"
>>
>> What you are really saying is that realclimate doesn't allow
>> you to play fast and loose with the truth. I can live with that. This
>> is an issue that needs honest discourse, not more of the bullshit you
>> attempt to pass off.
>
>LOL - I don't begrudge them posting only what they want others to see.

No, what they aren't allowing is bold-faced lies. You know,
like the kind you present here.

>It's their space. I appreciate that they let one mention of "dubious
>predictive value" be seen (and one mention of the inherent smearing out
>of variability by multiproxy approaches which combine time series, each
>with its own dating error).

It was seen, but the posters there are way to bright to fall
for your posturing, as are most of the people here.

>That a subsequent post of mine (republished
>below) did not make it past their gatekeeping is interesting. They let
>ad hominems flow like glaciers, but kept substantive stuff off the page.

You haven't posted anything substantive in 5 years, Steve. You
don't even comprehend the basics, so your posturing on this and that
is just that: posturing.

It's interesting to note that when the SAR was first published
you spent most of your time posting from the first report. Now that
the TAR is the latest available science, you are only posting from
material nearly 10 years out of date. When do you suppose you'll get
around to posting something current?

David Ball

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 10:22:04 PM2/18/05
to

Please show me where this industry exists, Perfesser. Using
define:industry one finds,

Definitions of industry on the Web:

the people or companies engaged in a particular kind of commercial
enterprise; "each industry has its own trade publications"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

the organized action of making of goods and services for sale;
"American industry is making increased use of computers to control
production"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

Please show us the commercial enterprise or the goods and
services for sale. Sorry, Perfesser, but once again you're wrong.
Don't you ever get tired of it?

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 11:17:53 PM2/18/05
to
In article <q1cd11hfjq5qojfbq...@4ax.com>,
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

It's quite reasonable to refer to climate change research industry.
Scholars have long used the term industry when discussing groups of
organizations that don't meet the various criteria you seem to, uh,
endorse. See, for example, the paper by Temple University professor
James G. McGann ["Academics to Ideologues: A Brief History of the Public
Policy Research Industry", Political Science and Politics 25(4):733-740,
December 1992].

Coby Beck

unread,
Feb 18, 2005, 11:44:23 PM2/18/05
to

"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-EC5...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

>> Please show us the commercial enterprise or the goods and
>> services for sale. Sorry, Perfesser, but once again you're wrong.
>> Don't you ever get tired of it?
>
> It's quite reasonable to refer to climate change research industry.

I too, found it strange to hear climate change industry (I think it appears
this way, without the word research, usually). But reviewing the dictionary
definitions, I think it is defensible. I still think it is a PR trick
though.

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 1:58:28 AM2/19/05
to
In article <HuzRd.191$0h.174@clgrps13>,
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:

An Australian columnist today describes why we can talk about what he
calls the "global warming industry"

--- BEGIN EXCERPT FROM MICHAEL DUFFY OP ED ---

The myth of man-made global warming thrives because it fits the
interests of so many people, such as Green groups in search of crises to
attract new members (no crisis, no cash) and politicians looking for
excuses. We can now speak of a global warming industry.

Professor Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric scientist who headed the
Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of
Tasmania for many years.

He says most developed countries have institutionalised their greenhouse
activity within government agencies devoted specifically to mitigation
of global warming. Their budgets are enormous.

It is not likely that the public servants who staff them will be
receptive to doubts about their reason for existence.

Nor are the research institutions concerned with global warming likely
to bite the hands that feed them.

As to the claim that there is a consensus on global warming among
climate scientists, Paltridge is dismissive. He says: That belief is
simply not true.

[Source: Michael Duffy (MATP), "Why being green is good camouflage", The
Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia), February 19, 2005, p. 18]

w...@bas.ac.uk

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 5:47:22 AM2/19/05
to
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:

>Is it correct to say that you blocked, from realclimate.org, the post
>which you here partly reproduce and comment upon?

No.

>As it turns out, your assumption about which paper is Risbey et al.
>(2000) is correct. Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or
>the E&E paper?

No.

>As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article...

The MBH data is annually resolved and has small dating errors.

David Ball

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 8:24:54 AM2/19/05
to

In your opinion, but you have no factual basis for making the
statement, especially after reference to the much vaunted Google
define.

>Scholars have long used the term industry when discussing groups of
>organizations that don't meet the various criteria you seem to, uh,
>endorse. See, for example, the paper by Temple University professor
>James G. McGann ["Academics to Ideologues: A Brief History of the Public
>Policy Research Industry", Political Science and Politics 25(4):733-740,
>December 1992].

Nice try. It is a pejorative term you apply in an effort to
demonize the work of thousands of scientists. There's little wonder
that you do so given that you are incapable of finding anything
substantive on which to base a coherent argument. Of course, it should
be remembered that even when valid criticisms arise, you aren't likely
to even notice them because you lack the wit to understand what is
being said.


Eric Swanson

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 9:55:25 AM2/19/05
to
In article <steve.schulin-7F1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, steve....@nuclear.com says...

>
> w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>>
>> >That non-E&E reference for Loehle should have been Ecological Modelling
>> >171:433. Here's an excerpt which describes the concept: "The standard
>> >assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports, is that over
>> >a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend
>> >to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000) and thus the null model for
>> >climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some
>> >autocorrelated noise.
>>
>> This seems a very primitive view of detection and attribution.
>>
>> It also seems to be something of a misrepresentation of Risbey (2000),
>> assuming its http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~ris/publications/daproto.pdf
>>
>> >It is also likely
>> >that when time series with large dating errors are averaged...
>>
>> But the MBH (and most others) don't contain large dating errors.

[cut sig]

>When a post like mine never actually gets approved for being included on
>your site, what happened to it? Did other principals there likely read
>it besides whomever was "on duty"? It was, except for correction to
>Ecological Modelling citation, a direct reply to comments you had made.
>Is it correct to say that you blocked, from realclimate.org, the post
>which you here partly reproduce and comment upon?
>
>As it turns out, your assumption about which paper is Risbey et al.
>(2000) is correct. Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or
>the E&E paper?

[cut]

>As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article, in
>which Loehle discusses the matter further, including some discussion of
>Mann et al. 1998 and Mann et al. 1999. He concludes, BTW, that Soon et
>al's approach is much more informative, regarding variability, than
>multiproxy studies which combine time series, each with their own dating
>error. The E&E citation is:
>
>Energy & Environment · Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004,, pp. 1-10
>USING HISTORICAL CLIMATE DATA TO EVALUATE CLIMATE TRENDS: ISSUES OF
>STATISTICAL INFERENCE
>Craig Loehle, Ph.D.

I see you are still enamored by Loehle's Ecological Modeling paper. You
still refuse to consider the problems with that paper, which we have been
through several times. I can say without doubt that his results are
seriously in error. I'm surprised that the paper hasn't been retracted.

Have there been any letters to the Editor at EM on this paper?
Surely, someone with knowledge of climate science would have complained.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------

marika

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 9:59:45 AM2/19/05
to

Steve Schulin wrote:

>What
> was offensive about the one-line post: "I happily report that
McIntyre
> says he was not referring to oil when he specified _mineral_
> exploration." ?
>

Interesting observation.

mk5000

"You're fucking lazy
Bite my lip and close my eyes
Take me away to paradise
I'm so damn BORED"--green day, longview

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 10:26:54 AM2/19/05
to
In article <cv7k0r$515d$1...@news3.infoave.net>,
swa...@notspam.net (Eric Swanson) wrote, in part:

> steve....@nuclear.com says...


> >>
> >As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article, in
> >which Loehle discusses the matter further, including some discussion of
> >Mann et al. 1998 and Mann et al. 1999. He concludes, BTW, that Soon et
> >al's approach is much more informative, regarding variability, than
> >multiproxy studies which combine time series, each with their own dating
> >error. The E&E citation is:
> >
> >Energy & Environment · Vol. 15, No. 1, 2004,, pp. 1-10
> >USING HISTORICAL CLIMATE DATA TO EVALUATE CLIMATE TRENDS: ISSUES OF
> >STATISTICAL INFERENCE
> >Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
>
> I see you are still enamored by Loehle's Ecological Modeling paper. You
> still refuse to consider the problems with that paper, which we have been
> through several times. I can say without doubt that his results are
> seriously in error. I'm surprised that the paper hasn't been retracted.

LOL - even if you were correct in every one of the many aspects of
Loehle's paper which we discussed, I don't recall you ever discussing
the particular point about the inherent smearing of variability which
occurs when combining time series, each with its own dating error.


>
> Have there been any letters to the Editor at EM on this paper?
> Surely, someone with knowledge of climate science would have complained.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 10:54:17 AM2/19/05
to
In article <s4fe11t816t8b1itu...@4ax.com>,
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

I've concluded that climate science is to science what military music is
to music. Yet I have no doubt that the vast majority of climate
scientists are decent and intelligent folks. I urge them to police their
own discipline.

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 11:07:49 AM2/19/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
SNIp....

>
>>... By the way, do you know that the price of
>>bananas if you shop carefully is about 0.60 Euro per pound if you could
>>pay in Euros and if they were priced per kilo?
>>
Why are you avoiding answering my questions Steve. Afraid????

josh halpern

David Ball

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 11:28:21 AM2/19/05
to

LOL. You've concluded, have you? Who exactly are you? You've
admitted to having no particular expertise, though that admission is
hardly necessary. Your preference for pseudo-science, biased newspaper
stories, and flawed logic is well documented. Indeed, you actively
gravitate toward the most egregious non-scientific material you can
find, provided it says something you think might muddy the waters.
What I can't figure out is why you bother. People here stopped
believing what you had to say a long time ago. Do you have some
twisted need to get stomped on regularly? It doesn't seem to matter
what you post on, you can't seem to get anything right. As soon as you
make a post, people correct you clearly and concisely at which time
you spend a week or two mindlessly attempting to defend your
indefensible position, then you quietly skulk away. This will happen
here eventually.

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 11:36:16 AM2/19/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Steve Schulin wrote:
>>> Joshua Halpern <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>Steve Schulin wrote:
SNIP.....

>>>>I gather you accept the numbers given in the URL. Which was my point.
>>>>You now attempt to move the shell.
>>>
>>>I did not follow that aspect of the thread.
>>
>>Then why did you comment on it. You evidently have nothing to add to
>>the question of whether exploration costs broadly or narrowly construed
>>exceed the costs of climate research, but you take our time saying
>>nothing germain in an offensive way
>
> I replied quite politely to an aspect that Dr. Tobis brought up. What
> was offensive about the one-line post: "I happily report that McIntyre
> says he was not referring to oil when he specified _mineral_
> exploration." ?

Well, to quote you what you said about MT was


>
>>>I'm again delighted, this
>>>time by seeing you specifying an assumption. I wasn't moving any shell.
>>>I was replying to an apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis.
>>
>>Right, and you are the pooooor wounded soul who complained about the
>>mean things that Michael said about you. Look, I have shown you
>>evidence that what MT said was true, and you still insist that what he
>>said was wrong.

Poor wounded soul.

Let us see. You claim that you never insulted MT, and we have the
"apparently ignorant comment by Dr. Tobis" You are, I gather, now going
to claim that your comment was not insulting. You are quite welcome to
try it, but don't expect much sympathy.


>
> He was wrong when he said "So the question comes down to what proportion
> of energy costs are attributable to 'exploration'."

Ah, now we come to the lexically confusing defense. Let us parse. SS
is referring to a statement by MT.

> "That was the aspect I commented on.

Meaning that SS was commenting on statements by MT, not McIntyre, which
is interesting (aka post hoc covering your butt) because, one assumes
that if SS were actually doing so, he would have commented on MT's post
in this thread. A post which is remarkably intelligent, and which I
append.

> I've reread your posts to this thread, and have not noticed
> you showing evidence that what he said was true in this regard.

SS, I was responding to your post, a post where you drag in a bunch of
red herrings and a post where you were not responding to Tobis either
directly or indirectly. Anyhow, since we have established to everyone's
satisfaction that exploration costs exceed climate research costs, we
can now move on to other matters. Here is Tobis' statement. Why not
tell us what you disagree with there

***************************************

http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

******************************************

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 11:41:22 AM2/19/05
to
Steve Schulin wrote:
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>>"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message

>>>>Please show us the commercial enterprise or the goods and


>>>>services for sale. Sorry, Perfesser, but once again you're wrong.
>>>>Don't you ever get tired of it?
>>>
>>>It's quite reasonable to refer to climate change research industry.
>>
>>I too, found it strange to hear climate change industry (I think it appears
>>this way, without the word research, usually). But reviewing the dictionary
>>definitions, I think it is defensible. I still think it is a PR trick
>>though.
>

I grow fonder of wmc's description of Steve's ilk as septics.

josh halpern

Steve Schulin

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 11:51:38 AM2/19/05
to

> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>
> >Is it correct to say that you blocked, from realclimate.org, the post
> >which you here partly reproduce and comment upon?
>
> No.

I very much appreciate your answering this question. As my other
question (which you snip here without reply) might suggest, I remain
curious as to whether you read my response to your comment at your site
before I posted it here as an example of a substantive post which was
not approved at realclimate.

> >As it turns out, your assumption about which paper is Risbey et al.
> >(2000) is correct. Have you read Loehle's Ecological Modelling paper? Or
> >the E&E paper?
>
> No.
>
> >As for "large dating errors", I urge folks to read the E&E article...
>
> The MBH data is annually resolved and has small dating errors.

LOL - in terms of smearing out of variability when combining the 112 or
159 or 415 individual time series, what criteria do you apparently
insist on dividing large from small? Loehle agrees that for the most
recent 300 years, the smearing effect from combining dendrochronological
series is small enough to ignore.
>
> -W.

Eric Swanson

unread,
Feb 19, 2005, 12:39:31 PM2/19/05