Bishop Hill Latercomers
Jun 12, 2012 Climate: MWP A couple of new stories on the Gergis affair may be of interest to readers - Andy Revkin here and Retraction Watch here.
Bishop Hill
McIntyre has sent the following comment to Revkin via email. (AR has posted it in the comments).
By framing a Climate Audit discussion as extended peer review, you can perhaps see why demands that I produce my own reconstruction are off point to the criticisms. Climate Audit is a form of extended peer review and criticism.
The criticisms that I’ve made have nearly all been the sort of questions that, in my opinion, a properly informed peer reviewer should have asked. For example, the Yamal dispute that you covered a couple of years ago, was an extended peer review issue. I asked why the authors did not use the site selection method in the Yamal area that they had used in the Avam-Taimyr area. Had a peer reviewer understood the methods well enough, he ought to have asked that question. It was a good question at the time and remains a good question.
If the authors had responded – as CRU and Real Climate did – saying , Nyah, nyah, we can get Hockey Sticks some other way – the reviewer and editor would have concluded that the authors were deranged. This sort of question should be answered on its own terms – as Karoly appears intent on doing.
The same things apply to the ongoing Mann debate. The technical “peer review” points were never answered. Instead, the topic gets changed to – We can get Sticks some other way; or Sticks don’t matter.
Although “peer review” is apparently an integral part of academic publishing, there is astonishingly little empirical study of peer reviews themselves because the documents are not available. Most academic discussions tend to be programmatic and platitudinous: that it’s flawed but it’s the best alternative.
I try to avoid generalities. In practical terms, if reliance is to be placed on academic articles for policy purposes, people need to recognize what isn’t done in journal peer review: no review of data, no detailed review of methodology. It is evident to me that academics need to accommodate “extended peer review” by archiving of data and meticulous documentation of procedures (source code is an aid to this, though too often sneered at.) The hypocrisy of academics expecting large-scale policy changes while refusing to provide data on the grounds of “intellectual property rights” is risible and deserving of the contempt of the public.
BTW the problems in Gergis et al are no worse than Mann et al 2008, which should have been retracted for its use of contaminated upside-down data for his centerpiece no-dendro reconstruction. By conceding the problem, Karoly and Gergis have suffered some loss of reputation, while Mann’s obfuscation has been extremely successful within the field. It seems unfortunate that people suffer for doing the right thing and are rewarded for the wrong thing. (But not the only place in the world where this happens.)
Cheers, Steve
Reader Comments (49)
Nice comment on the NYT article:
quote
Actual climate scientists like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann know what he's all about, since McIntyre has relentlessy attacked them for years, armed only with arcane statistical jargon and fever dreams of secret scientific cabals
unquote
When the secret history of the 21st century is written, historians will point to the tireless work of those like Mike Roddy and Scott Mandia who patrol the web providing rebuttals like this. In his far northern ice-cave, Iceman McIntyre must be gnashing his teeth as the peerless duo don their bat capes and leap into the warm-mobile.
Sad to see Revkin citing Sceptical Science though. Perhaps he is being ironic.
JF
Julian Flood - 8:53 -
I prefer this comment immediately above the one you quote in the NYT article -
quote
Adrian O State College, PA
DOES STEVE MCINTYRE HAVE A PHD?
I don't know.
And I don't care.
I've been on many PhD committees, in math, physics and occasionally engineering. The whole thing is about whether the candidate understands the way science works well enough so that the present small contribution is a sign that better things may come one day.
Now look at what Steve does. Tirelessly, day after day, goes through all the details. For every measurement, its source and accuracy. The way it was used in drawing a conclusion.
Pruning out all the bad stuff.
Now if that isn't the very essence of science, furthering accuracy in human knowledge, then what is?
Even more so in this area, on which the prosperity or bankruptcy of the whole world depends.
Some great institution, somewhere, should give this man an honorary PhD. Regardless of whether he has one already.
It's the one time I regret I'm not a high level administrator. (Not that I would ever have those diplomatic skills, to be fair.)
unquote
More and more thinking people are beginning to see through the adhoms and focusing on the facts. Still a long way to go though.
Revkin interviews Karoly but fails to ask him whether he found the problem independently or read about it at Climate Audit.
Being an environment journalist, like running an independent investigation for a university, is fearfully difficult. You’ve got to be SO careful not to ask the questions which everyone wants the answers to.
Jun 12, 2012 at 9:31 AM | geoffchambers
Yeah, as I scanned down the article and saw Revkin had contacted Karoly I was preparing myself for him to once and for all elicit the precedence of who, when, and how, the fault was spotted , but somehow he tiptoed around it. Amazing isn't it? My guess is that Revkin would characterise such questions as rude or irrelevant. I wouldn't call this cargo cult journalism, since I think he knows how to do it properly, but it is a method of shaping of the information whilst giving the impression of having dealt with it robustly. Possibly he doesn't know he does this himself, but it is crap.
Jun 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM | Julian Flood
Thanks for highlighting that comment. Foam-flecked really doesn't cover it does it? I think it is funny that the people who have a history of using the knee-jerk poisoning-the-well tactic regarding McIntyre are now sadly committed to this technique since they have never developed any other style of engagement. So as the mundane truth becomes ever clearer, and McIntyre is shown to be just a guy who is pretty single minded and ordinary, their demeanour looks ever more deserving of the straight jacket. Ha!
[Snip - O/T]
Revkin failed by not contacting McIntyre for the blog post. We can safely assume that the "prestige press" ((c) M.E.Mann) guy is afraid of acting as a fully professional reporter even in cases like this.
I surmise the reason for such a fear is somewhere in the UVa's emails.
OFFICIAL - One of the Gergis 5 discovered the ever-so-minor, more than likely doesn't matter error before Climate Audit. From Adam Morton of The Age, AKA the Grauniad of the Yarra. Adam Morton over the years has made Richard Black look like a recalcitrant sceptic.
I left (IMO) a polite but critical comment to Revkin's blog. Let's see if it will be published, if not, I'll publish it here.
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.
According to Revkin and his article sources, this is a marvellous example of how wonderfully well open review is working and soda and lollipops all around.
Well, this was certainly evidence of:
- Narrow and inappropriate review (i.e. most likely by non-statistician Hockey Team members or supporters)
- Lack of an proper "audit" (come on - the published results were the opposite of what was claimed - i.e. NOT using de-trended data)
- No full and proper archiving of provision of data (i.e. the EXCLUDED data series which were germaine to the intial point of interest of cherry picking, or circular reasoning)
- A complete refeusal to release and data to people interested in replicating the work.
- For good measure a snide and patronising response to honest and enquiring engagement from the academic concerned (i.e. the suggestion from Gergis that Steve Mc should do some "research")
Mr Revkin could have written an entirely different article if he had so wished to fully reflect events.
I left a brief comment on Revkin's blog on the story about Gleick being reinstated and Mann's statement about him being exonerated. Revkin axed it. It was really rather mild in that I noted that Mann's standards for what constitutes exoneration seem about the same for what constitutes quality science. Revkin apparently doesn't allow criticism of Mann. McIntyre, however, gets slimed and slandered in comments relentlessly.
In view of the fact that Revkin (along with the likes of Black, Monbiot, and not a few others) makes a comfortable living out of being highly selective with what he chooses to report and the comments he permits, would it be out of order to describe them all as paid shills for the global warming lobby?
It would seem — by their standards at least — an accurate description.
Mike Jackson - it's worse than that. Wittingly or not, they are all paid shills by the Big (non-shale) Gas lobby.
The only recourse such partisan hacks will ever give competent and honest scientists is open revolt against the system. That is how they define the debate--i.e., the war--on their own terms.
Meanwhile, at Climate Audit and RealClimate, Jim Bouldin and Martin Vermeer ( a climate scientist, if I am not mistaken), tumble further and further into the nether world.
From Vermeer:
" But tell me, would you actually trust as temperature proxies, proxies that fail to repond to this clear signal?"
This is a unambiguous instance where a clear example of circular reasoning, that is obvious to almost any outside observer, is completely lost on an expert.
The answer to Vermeer's question is here: You guess that a small set of trees (or any purported proxies) could be responding to temperature. You satisfy yourself by correlating ring width (or density, or any such measure) with instrumental temperatures.
If you find a match, you go back to the universe from which your set was drawn and select, *randomly*, a larger set of trees with similar characteristics as your initial set (similar location, species etc) and do the same correlation.
If they show a similar correlation, your confidence increases that your original guess was correct and the trees may be responding to temperature.
The *trust* in the whole process comes from the non-selective, or random, or independent nature of the sampling process.
For these guys however, it is the exact opposite. As soon as they see *the match*, they start trusting the proxies.
I didn't know it was this bad.
Karoly “This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.”
Gergis "This list allows any researcher who wants to access non publically available records to follow the appropriate protocol of contacting the original authors to obtain the necessary permission to use the record, take the time needed to process the data into a format suitable for data analysis etc, just as we have done. This is commonly referred to as ‘research’.
We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter."
Clearly, Gergis is somewhat at odds with what Karoly is offering in mitigation. Revkin misses or ignores this.
Is Karoly saying this is independent analysis? NOT one of his team then? Follwed by use of the evil passive 'an issue has been identified', not 'we identified an issue'.
I don't think Revkin's article is so bad:
(a) AFAIK it's the first 'Gergisgate' article in the mainstream media
(b) He refers to McIntyre's blog
(c) He accurately identifies the key comment from Jean on Jun 5 that led to the paper being withdrawn
(d) He puts Karoly's "put on hold" claim in quotes, as McIntyre did
(e) He notes the huge media hype the paper received
OK, he should have asked Karoly more challenging questions, for example "put on hold" being a euphemism for "withdrawn", and 'do you really expect anyone to believe you discovered the error independently', and he should have got an opinion from the 'other side'.
Hilariously, Roddy appears to have been in such a rush to pull his underpants on over his tights and leap into the warm-mobile - that he forgot to check that Joelle Gergis is in fact a lady (assuming green activists allow themselves to be so described).
Mike Roddy
Yucca Valley, California
....Gergis is being way too polite and accommodating, though he no doubt expects to debunk McIntyre's charges when he gets around to it.
Jean S- "I left (IMO) a polite but critical comment to Revkin's blog."
I don't expect you to have a problem with it being posted, but be patient. It may take several days to appear. Revkin is no longer employed by the NYT. He is a senior fellow at Pace University now, but still runs Dot Earth. If Andy is on one of his frequent 'carbon-pollution' trips related to climate change issues, then the wait can be even longer.
I have posted many critical comments at Revkin's blog over the years. Only one of my comments was removed. It was made in reply to Andy's glowing article about Michael Tobis and his new website. My comment included quotes of prior Tobis 'insights' that fell far below the minimum standards of the blogs at the NY Times. Go figure.
Foxgoose,
I was about to post up a very similar comment. LOL
This illustrates the general failing of Mike Roddy et al, it is all in the details.
Revkin also fails to mention the elephant in the room: this paper, should it ever be corrected, could show that trees are not thermometers. It HAS to produce a hockey stick to support both catastrophic and global theory.
Perhaps someone with a NYT user account could point it out to Roddy in a post - before he beclowns himself any further.
On second thoughts..................
@stan: ... I noted that Mann's standards for what constitutes exoneration seem about the same for what constitutes quality science.
It's all "of a piece", isn't it? ... The "science", data archiving, treatment of those who dare to question the latest Urals-area grain production statistics, puff pieces on release, benefit of doubt - bordering on benefit of fact - when a Team member comes unstuck.
In the parallel universe of Grand Narrative Climatology, the standards of evidence, methodology and scrupulousness are twinned with those which subsequently exonerate.
For the last two decades or more environmentalists (so-called, and including a whole range of characters with neo-Malthusians, Gaia-worshippers and other assorted nutters among them) have realised that they are pushing at an open door, the key to which — the "open sesame", if you like — was the word 'environment'.
After all, who could possibly be against 'the environment' in the terms in which they chose to describe it (which were not necessarily the terms in which they saw it!)?
At various times the word 'conspiracy' bubbles to the surface and is, quite reasonably, laughed out of court. Except that it is a fairly accurate description of what has happened and continues to happen. The politico-philosophical grouping that usually goes by the catch-all term "The Left" and which would probably be better described using Delingpole's term "watermelons" has a long and reasonably successful history of infiltration into those bits of society where it can spread its malevolent beliefs. Think 1970s industrial and teaching trade unions in the UK — the corrosive effects on several generations of schoolchildren are still with us.
These "Heirs of Trotsky" and other witting and unwitting "useful idiots" have succeeded in infiltrating the media to the extent that very few of them are entitled to be described any longer as journalists. They are no more than environmental activists able to use their position to further the Cause.
As geoffchambers pointed out up-thread they make sure they carefully avoid asking the questions that the public would like to have answers to.
Opinions from "the other side" would be the very last thing they would want.
Isn't it funny? The authors of Gergis et al have to now choose between the 'right answer' and their own integrity. Delicious.
I like the way 'science works'.
On the upside, no one is getting away with refusing to mention Steve McIntyre's work anymore. I should note that Revkin, along with his many other journalistic failings in this article, failed to give Jean S credit for any part of this story. Among the failings in his article:
- failed to contact Steve to get his thoughts
- failed to contact or credit Jean S
- although it's implied, he failed to ask Karoly if the paper's errors were independently discovered or came as a result of critical threads on CA
- failed to fault "pal" review process so common in climate "science"
- failed to address issue advocacy by so-called scientists (i.e. the paper's lead author, Gergis) and the inherent corruption of the scientific method by such emotions.
To his credit, Revkin at least has been forced to fault knee-jerk cheerleading of the "Fresh SH Hockey Sticks" paper. And if I believed this would be his new standard going forward, this could change his future reportage greatly. But I don't believe it. Revkin will probably continue to give alarmism and warmism every benefit of every doubt, and commit journalistic sins of omission, in order to stay loyal to his side of the debate. Because he's an advocate first, and a journalist second. Of course, that's just one man's opinion.
WUWT has a new post with favourable comment on Revkin's piece
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/revkin-on-the-gergis-et-al-on-hold-affair/
@shub
'The authors of Gergis et al have to now choose between the 'right answer' and their own integrity'.
Even better they have to find a way to do it unanimously among the five authors if they can. Because there'll be a high premium (either way) on being the first to break ranks and dissent from the other four.
Any future work they do together will be subject to the most detailed scrutiny ever, so keeping the five as a five isn't a long term career move unless they are very very close knit. We already see that Karoly's tone is more emollient than Gergis's teenage posturing.
If I were thinking of walking away with my integrity intact, I maybe lose three years work, but likely gain a lot of respect outside of 'the community'. But if I stay and somebody else walks, my reputation as a team player is increased, but diminished as an original scientist.
Of course they could just find the individual who cocked it up and sacrifice him/her to the slavering hordes of McSteve, Anthony and The Bishop. Making sure that nobody ever would wish to collaborate with them again.
Tough choices....I'd love to be a fly on the wall.
If they do the discussions by e-mail can we FoI them pls? Tee hee
The dates of this story are yet another IT'S A MIRACLE phenomenon.
Of all the AR5 papers, exactly Gergis' became top billing on RC, and exactly Gergis' got reviewed by its authors just as McI and crew were finding out its mistakes.
!!!
Seriously though...isn't it worrying, the whole "this is how science works" thing is based on McIntyre and some friend checking stuff properly, the rest might as well be just unchecked rubbish that nobody will ever verify, and it's all taken for granted.
Mickey, I don't find it that bad that Revkin is not mentioning my name. He did give the link to the original comment, and as long as he is crediting CA it's fine with me. More I'm wondering why it seems so hard to Anthony Watts to give any credit to me ... as far as I can tell he's yet to mention my name.
My comment should be up at Revkin's soon. Andrew was kind enough to contact me for two missing links in my comment.
Jean S's comment is now up at Revkin's (link to column in original post). Links within his comment (where he wrote "here and here") are not yet present.
Harold,
I sent the links to Revkin by email, and I'll suspect they will appear shortly once he updates the blog. Those who don't want to wait, here they are (I could have chosen a few cases over CA, but they are a little bit too "technical" to digest):
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/26/a-good-trick-to-create-a-decline.html
David Karoly says in the Revkin article.
You do not need a PhD to conclude that if your study is reduced from 27 to 6 by applying the t-test that you cannot claim a significant sample that represents nearly 10% of the globe. Neither can you make any claims about the 1990s being the warmest decade of the millennium with studies covering 109, 117, 129, 384, 429 and 1002 years. - with the warmest decade in the last study being in the 12th century.
In fact you only need to reject one study - and a very poor one at that - to over turn the central conclusion.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/11/how-gergis-suppressed-the-medieval-warm-period/
"More I'm wondering why it seems so hard to Anthony Watts to give any credit to me ... as far as I can tell he's yet to mention my name. Jun 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM | Jean S"
What Watts posts consists mainly of quotations of Revkin and McIntyre (the formatting could be improved as it is not always clear who wrote what). And when he writes that "Karoly acknowledges McIntyres contribution", not only is that a wee exageration, but it is of course Karoly who does not mention you at all.
ManicBeancounter, I think it is an impossible path to them to stick to the detrended screening, it just have too many "undesirable" side effects. I believe the only feasible solution is to stick to those 27 proxies picked by direct correlation, and face the "screening fallacy" and explain why suddenly detrending was not needed after all. How they are going to do that will be fun to read.
Alexej, you may want to check also the other two posts he has up on the subject. IMO, also this is telling.
Nice! Revkin has posted an extended email comment from Steve McIntyre which makes several important points.
If I may cross-post what I said at WUWT, please check out SM's comments on Revkin's blog, and also some of the other comments there. The comment excerpted below is a particularly important point but there is much more:
McIntyre comments on Revkin's NY Times blog
[Steve McIntyre]: "....It is evident to me that academics need to accommodate “extended peer review” by archiving of data and meticulous documentation of procedures (source code is an aid to this, though too often sneered at.) The hypocrisy of academics expecting large-scale policy changes while refusing to provide data on the grounds of “intellectual property rights” is risible and deserving of the contempt of the public...."
When I started paying more attention to climate issues some months ago, one of the first things that struck me was the poor quality of discourse from people like Mann and the Team at Real Climate. I kept thinking "these do not sound like real scientists".... of course they "know" something or they would not be able to churn out publishable articles etc. but I mean that their responses to questions and criticisms are often so weak, so ad hominem, so reckless..... from my much more limited perspective I heartily concur with Steve Mc's witty statement quoted above [my emphasis added]:
"....If the authors had responded – as CRU and Real Climate did – saying , Nyah, nyah, we can get Hockey Sticks some other way – the reviewer and editor would have concluded that the authors were deranged....."
What will Andy teach the children now? Statistics perhaps?
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/whats-a-science-teacher-to-do/
chuck in the bin with the paper
oh, and that Joelle, all pandering to liberating women issues aside: If she still manages to eeke out an academic career of some sorts after this one, then there is no justice anymore. We're back in the middle ages where birth and sex only matter.
Karoly “This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.”
----------------------------------------------
"Strengthens the conclusions"??? Pea, meet thimble. We already have the answer - even if the fundamental premise of your calculations is proved to be completely the opposite of what you said, this will only strengthen the conclusions - the conclusions being the one immutable part of the paper.
Karoly has been an unscrupulous alarmist on steroids for years, with strong connections to fellow alarmists in government and science. Scratch the surface of any stupid Australian government policy based on alarmism of the most overblown stripe, and his name is in there somewhere. There are some scientists whose beliefs I regard as mistaken, but whose personal integrity remains intact. Karoly is not one of them.
It is interesting that as soon as the manure hit the revolving blades, the media-friendly "lead author" vanished and resident hard-man Karoly took over. As we speak, he is assuring nervous Ministers and bureaucrats that this is a minor glitch that will soon be fixed with no loss of credibility to them.
As mentioned above, whitewashing is the only coverage in the MSM so far, with uber-green 'environment reporters' falling over themselves to co-operate. After all, it makes them look naive and stupid as well, since they trumpeted the received message when the paper first came out without even pretending to have any clue what the paper actually was about.
Jean S -
I believe the only feasible solution is to stick to those 27 proxies picked by direct correlation, and face the "screening fallacy" and explain why suddenly detrending was not needed after all.
You may well be correct about that prediction. Yet really only 18 of the 27 proxies should survive, as Nick Stokes calculated in a post on CA, if one includes the Quenouille adjustment to the degrees of freedom. [Although that computation assumed the usual (Pearson) correlation and not the Spearman correlation which I believe Gergis used; Spearman would cost another couple of proxies.] Any guess as to whether Gergis et al. will adopt this adjustment?
On the other hand, the number of screened proxies increases slightly if one uses (correctly in my opinion) a one-sided significance test rather than the two-sided one. I predict that Gergis et al. will discover and correct this oversight.
It's good that Gergis didn't release the code. Or JeanS or McI would have run it, gotten the proclaimed results and the uncovering of their errors would/could have taken longer.
It would still be interesting to see the original code.
The part that really annoyed me about Revkin's post was:
With this in mind - and since Skiphill received no objections to cross-posting his own words from WUWT - I hope readers might accord me the same privliege :-)
=========
As I mentioned at CA, I would be inclined to give Karoly the benefit of the doubt on his creatively ambiguous E-mail to Steve had he also:
a) Made an appearance at CA when the error was under discussion; and/or
b) Also requested that Steve be kind enough to publicly review and critique their revisions prior to re-submission.
Similarly, I would be inclined to give Revkin the benefit of the doubt had he also contacted Steve to get the “backstory” on this. Frankly, I found it quite insulting that Revkin should have felt it necessary to contact Karoly in order to “confirm” the content of the E-mail Steve had posted.
What “confirmation” did Revkin seek (and from whom) before he did his part in propagating the “message” in Gleick’s dishonest Valentines Day Mashup?
And, come to think of it … what “confirmation” – or evidence – did Revkin ever seek before publishing Gavin’s ever-changing story regarding the alleged “upload” [and four now-you-don't-see-em, now-you-do, now-you-don't alleged "downloads"] at RC, circa Nov. 17, 2009?
Some other questions Revkin might have asked Karoly about this “normal part of science”:
Is it a “normal part of science” that five authors would append their names to a paper without any of them verifying the validity of the text and the underlying data and methods prior to submission to a journal?
Is it a “normal part of science” that – when requested to provide details which would facilitate replication – an author would say (as Gergis did):
Or is it a “normal part of science journalism” that one simply does not ask such inconvenient questions?
In the (unfortunately) anticipated absence of answers to the above, I am increasingly leaning towards the conclusion that when the history of these sorry years in science (and science journalism) is written, Andrew Revkin will have earned himself the right to be dubbed ‘the Albert Speer* of climate science’.
*See: Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth by Gitta Sereny. 1996 Vintage Books ISBN: 0-679-76812-2
======
To which I would now add ... perhaps we should write to Steve McIntyre to 'to confirm the accuracy of a comment by Revkin to which he appended his E-mail'?!
I see that (as of this writing) there have been no further comments on Revkin's thread. Evidently, Revkin did not see fit to accord Steve the courtesy of including his E-mail in the headpost as an "update" (as I seem to recall he frequently has with emails in the past ... but then perhaps this inclusion is only accorded to E-mail responses he has requested),
So I do hope that Revkin will at least have the decency to alert readers to its presence in the comments, via such an update. Just in case it gets buried in the next run of the "algorithm" that (according to Revkin) determines which comments are allowed through and which are not!
"Alexej, you may want to check also the other two posts he has up on the subject. IMO, also this is telling. Jun 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM | Jean S"
The second post is by Jo Nova. But after getting that correction from McIntyre, I agree that he should have supplemented this remark:
"Now, after Steve McIntyre found some major faults, it seems this paper has gone missing..."
"Over the weekend, I got in touch with David Karoly, one of the paper’s authors and a longtime contact on climate science, to confirm the accuracy of a post by McIntyre quoting him. "
What a yucky thing to say.
Years of mainstream media training I guess. Habitually tread one's boots on the guy on the street.
Hilary,
Steve cannot be asked to review any part of their paper because he will insist on seeing all of the data, something the authors would never allow.
I want to remind everyone that one of the key 'proofs' of this paper that was trumpeted in the media blitz was that it was run 3,000 different ways to detect errors (such a nice, round figure). A cynic might say that each of these was within the preset parameters, so proved nothing at all.
As Einstein pointed out, beware of #3001.
By framing a Climate Audit discussion as extended peer review, you can perhaps see why demands that I produce my own reconstruction are off point to the criticisms.
As a trained, professional auditor (among other jobs) might I point out that auditing should specifically not include correction to the observations and non-conformities raised? The auditor might be involved in deciding on the corrections, but that is specifically outside the scope of the audit.
I believe Climate Audit is living up to its name admirably.
Your work on this topic has been stellar and I hate to disagree with you on anything. But in this case I must. I find it very bad that a journalist, writing a story about YOUR work and Steve's, failed to interview you, along with Karoly. That's not a high bar to clear.
Maybe one day Revkin will mention the corruption of "pal" reviews, the mutual circle jerking going on among the Team peer-reviewers, and notice that activism is trumping dispassionate science in the climate arena. But he'll need to put HIS activism and belief in the "cause" aside first, or he'll never see these things.