tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3961446805096376546..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Gerald North dishesEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43315853039941372012010-10-20T12:28:25.875-04:002010-10-20T12:28:25.875-04:00Mr. Bunny,
Thank you for your kind words, and the...Mr. Bunny,<br /><br />Thank you for your kind words, and the responsiveness to my questions at Bart's. FWIW, I commented on the WR <a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/maybe-rapp/#comment-55375" rel="nofollow">at Lucia's</a>. IMO, Prof. Mann's 2008 paleo paper was a poor choice for "AGW advocates" to take a stand for the robustness of paleotemperature reconstructions. So, now, Prof. Wegman's report is a poor choice for "skeptics" to take a stand on what doesn't constitute plagiarism.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63948932978843810412010-10-19T18:27:18.930-04:002010-10-19T18:27:18.930-04:00John Puma:
1) People easily can generate wrong con...John Puma:<br />1) People easily can generate wrong conclusions all by themselves, i.e., not being part of a social net does not guarantee correctness.<br /><br />2) On the other hand, being a senior member of a large, strong social network, and displaying various actions that bend/break peer review, is *not* a good basis for attacking a then-junior researcher's network.<br /><br />3) Wegman & co:<br />a) Never talked to climate scientists (from testimony)<br />b) Never talked to serious SNA researchers (inference from the various errors.) I only quoted one, as dead horses are dead. I could have gotten more if needed.<br /><br />If you want more, See <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/" rel="nofollow">SWSR</a>, Appendix W.5.1-6, ~10 pages.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65852708720508745372010-10-19T18:03:05.279-04:002010-10-19T18:03:05.279-04:00Climate dysfunction.Climate dysfunction.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79900776902137581302010-10-18T13:43:31.549-04:002010-10-18T13:43:31.549-04:00Social networks analysis (SNA)
Eli is kindly doing...Social networks analysis (SNA)<br />Eli is kindly doing Dummies Guides to <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/" rel="nofollow">Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report</a>.<br /><br />There are so many issues, he hasn't gotten to SNA yet, but if you want the hard-core SNA stuff, see SSWR, Appendices W.5 and W.2.3.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69216309665991810812010-10-18T10:17:00.298-04:002010-10-18T10:17:00.298-04:00Snow Bunny says:
The idea that climate science is...Snow Bunny says:<br /><br />The idea that climate science is done by a closed group is an awful crock.<br /><br />The data on what's happening to the globe is wide open and reported from many fields and disciplines. Whatever the data types, they support the predictions of global warming, indeed, they often find results at the high end of the predictions. Instance, the Grace gravity satellites, which measure the loss of mass of the Greenland ice and found a higher amount than the glacialogists had been able to see. Or, the multitude of biologists who have found movement of species northward and upward to cooler ecological niches.<br /><br />The social network yarn should be challenged with the evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1562597695284486792010-10-18T09:30:30.172-04:002010-10-18T09:30:30.172-04:00Was Barry Cooke asking a rhetorical question?Was Barry Cooke asking a rhetorical question?willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10047287939221788202010-10-18T07:45:41.828-04:002010-10-18T07:45:41.828-04:00It's worth going to "those emails" a...It's worth going to "those emails" and seeing what a dendro/paleo guy had to say about statisticians being provided, which was CC'd to ITRDB Dendrochronology Forum.<br /><br />"If Wegman et al. are suggesting that statisticians should be put to work to serve the interests of paleoclimatologists (which they are), then who on this list is going to argue that? I say let's put them to work!" -- Barry Cooke 17 Jul 2006J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67731729063236211242010-10-18T07:42:42.499-04:002010-10-18T07:42:42.499-04:00Excuse me for not delving directly into the mire o...Excuse me for not delving directly into the mire of the Wegman report. <br /><br />But, may I assume its authors, while attempting to undermine Dr. Mann by use of "social network analysis," also included in the report, such analysis upon THEMSELVES to verify absence of any possible taint and, therefore, guaranteeing validity of their conclusions?<br /><br />John PumaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15330170615472551342010-10-18T07:31:37.927-04:002010-10-18T07:31:37.927-04:00I hadn't noticed "the need to include sta...I hadn't noticed "the need to include statisticians on every team that engages in climate research (which in my view is a particularly unrealistic and unnecessary recommendation)" - interestin point. The septics harped on this one endlessly.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com