The UnAustralian

Sunday, November 02, 2003
 
Mann, Bradley and Hughes Respond

The allegations made by McIntyre and McKitrick have had an preliminary response.

The response can be found here (pdf file). Also, some other climate researchers have made a statement on the events here.

They write: An audit involves a careful examination, using the same data and following
the exact procedures used in the report or study being audited. McIntyre and McKitrick ("MM") have done no such thing, having used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98. Thus, it is entirely understandable that they do not obtain the same result. Their effort has no bearing on the work of MBH98, and is no way a "correction" of that study as they claim. On the contrary, their analysis appears seriously flawed and amounts to a gross misrepresentation of the work of MBH98. The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity.


They detail how M&M miss out some very important early proxies. When Mann and co miss out the same data they get false warming signel. M&M also fail to perform certain cross validation checks which lead to them to obtain a result which is essentially nonsense.

I've just checked M&M's website for a response, but currently there isn't one.

As I noted earlier, it would be good if a statistician, with no links to the climate change debate, could examine both sides and report back.

Thanks to Quark Soup for the research.
| 3:15 PM