Bishop Hill Questions for Marcott
Apr 7, 2013 Climate: MWP Commenter Skiphil writes:
I hope I'm not too repetitive with this but I regard it as both urgent and important. If Steve Mc and Climate Audit folks don't jump on it quickly enough the opportunity may pass. I think if "skeptics" can rapidly assemble a high quality list of questions for Revkin's blog, to be submitted to the Marcott authors, there's a decent chance of getting some progress on the issues.
I could take a wing on trying it, but I know there are plenty of BH and CA posters far more qualified who will get more pointed and focused questions together. If I don't see much progress anywhere on Sunday I'll start submitting my own questions on Dot Earth, but I'm hoping some more scientific readers can do the job better.
Andy Revkin of Dot Earth/NY Times blog is inviting questions to be submitted to the authors of Marcott et al. (2013). Since Revkin is one of the only journalists who might have a chance of getting the study authors to be responsive, this is a good opportunity.
Specifically, he's asked for someone to prepare one list of questions which are "perceived as unanswered."
Folks could start a list here at BH to post at Dot Earth, or simply post questions/points at Dot Earth until we have a good list.
Any thoughts?
Reader Comments (36)
I posted this earlier on the Spiking Marcott thread, so forgive me for repeating it here:
Unfortunately, I’m not sure it will get us very far. Marcott et al are already aware of some of those questions from email correspondence with SteveMc. I can’t believe they’re also unaware of further questions that have arisen at CA and other sites. Yet they’ve continued to be unresponsive thus far. We all know what will happen. They will listen to Revkin’s questions, misinterpret them, answer different ones and then claim all questions have been answered . Standard Team behaviour I’m afraid. They could prove me wrong, but I’m very sceptical that they will.
Steve Mc responded last night to a post at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/06/questions-for-marcott-et-al-submit-them-here/#comment-1267914
Also, this morning JeanS came up with the following list in response to skiphil:
The problem, of course, is that if they answer the questions honestly the paper may be found wanting. Or at least that is the impression I get from reading the comments by people who understand statistics.
My questions posted at WUWT last night were: "Why won’t Shakun and Marcott engage at ClimateAudit where their work is undergoing a detailed analysis? Why won’t they release their code?"
Revkin may actually be doing a review, but chances are high he will be slapped around a bit and get back to the kitchen where the AGW hypesters want him.
p.s. My sense of urgency when I sent this message last night, even though a bunch of Steve's questions have been out there for weeks, was that Revkin was also making noises that he was going to shut down his thread on the subject, and that it was a Sat. night when I was seeing this. Not knowing who might be around on a weekend night, I was simply trying to plant some seeds.
Of course, I agree with Steve Mc's comment on WUWT that it's best (by far, I would add) if he can be the locus of presenting the questions, so that they can be prioritized with his main concerns. I simply had no idea when I commented who if anyone would see Revkin's request for a day or two, and I was concerned that if he didn't get fast response the opportunity might pass.
I think Revkin is sincere from his own standpoint, but I won't argue with anyone who thinks the Marcott authors may already be under "Team" direction on this (hence the FAQ at RealClimate and the lack of response over weeks to the issues already raised at ClimateAudit). It may be a long shot, but still worth pursuing since Steve Mc is willing.
After decades of phony responsiveness, obfuscation, misrepresentation, and silence, I doubt anything of significance can be had.
On the other hand, nothing ventured nothing gained. What is there to lose?
Andrew
@ Skiphil: I think it's good to have this up here at BH so that everyone knows that a list of questions is being gathered and that presumably, Steve Mc will present them. I posted JeanS's questions at DotEarth about an hour ago, but there may be no moderator to post them. I also think I posted Steve Mc's comment at WUWT but I'm not sure that went through.
Agreed, it's a long shot that the questions will be answered. They are hiding behind RC's wall and probably taking orders from them, no doubt led by Mickey Mann. They have much to lose if they start to engage, although if the paper is a turkey, which appears likely based on what we've seen so far, it will eventually be exposed as such.
Question: do you pronounce your screen name "Skip hil" or "Ski phil?" I've been wondering about that for a long time.
theduke
Thanks for all. Re my nick, it's really "Ski phil" although most seem to assume it's "skip" first and I don't bother to correct them. It's really short for "ski philosopher" which has to do with my background and interests! One who loves to ski and loves to philosophize...... sometimes at the same time.
My questions:
Who were the reviewers?
Did they request the uptick be put in/left in?
Did they request specific papers to be cited?
Also
When are you withdrawing the paper to rewrite it?
'One who loves to ski and loves to philosophize...... sometimes at the same time.'
Like when that one ski gets away from you... and you find it 10 feet up in a tree, a hundred yards downslope. "HOW did it get there? WHY did it choose the most inaccesable....'
Which happened to me.
Steve's comment at WUWT that theduke mentions above is worth repeating in full here.
I agree with him.
Revkin's undertaking is misguided. If he were serious about the questions, he would submit only McIntyre's questions. It seems to me that this is a bit of self promotion and, at worst, an attempt at a blogospheric whitewash.
How did the wrong information, i.e. that we are in a runaway climate state, get disseminated to quickly? was there any effort to coordinate release of a fluffed up announcement? Who was involved?
Who were the peer reviewers? Why did they not know of the existence of the thesis with a different conclusion? Was this information deliberately ignored?
Who are the responsible editors at science? Are they familiar with Marcotte's work? Why did they except such an exceptional conclusion without question?
@Apr 7, 2013 at 6:13 PM | Josh
Yeah, re Steve Mc's comment, me too.
Yeah let's invite loads of questions and then decide which ones to answer - I love those kinds of scenarios - maybe have a drum spinning and someone could pick out the lucky contestant?
Where's the journalistic instinct here? You don't have to look too far to see who is motivated *and* best equipped to dig deep and get to the heart of the problem, but Revkin's instinct is rather is to play the groovy facilitator who doesn't want to offend anyone.
In my dream scenario having Steve McIntyre in a three way video link up with Marcott and Revkin up would be dynamite TV, you couldn't get a better example of showing willingness to have the criticism explored. But I think we all know that is just a fantasy because the world of climate "communication" is just really about image management, the climate community seems to operate on the Colonel Tom Parker school of PR management, not letting their boys get too exposed to anything risky, just letting their dignity crumble slowly and milking it while they can - this is their Blue Hawaii moment ;).
This is all about the greatest question facing humanity today you know - i.e. whether these climate heroes can get tenure ;)
Yeah! They might even have a pretty dolled-up lady pick 'the question.' There's an image there. ;)
Test. I've tried this post on Unthreaded all day today, and get an error message.
Some stuff in today's Mail:
Birdy choppers:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305197/RSPB-makes-killing--windfarm-giants-turbines-accused-destroying-rare-birds.html
Solar panels:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305084/Hands-views-warning-German-firm-plots-invasion-solar-gold-rush.html
As the commenter that Andy Revkin responded to, reference the compiling of a list of questions, I think this scattergun approach by Skiphill has been generally unhelpful and has resulted in dozens of questions, many irrelevant to the science, no doubt having been submitted to Andy Revkin at Dot Earth. Since it is not likely the authors will be willing to provide answers to dozens of questions all this will do is facilitate a position where the authors will selectively pick the ones they wish to answer and avoid the deficiencies in the science.
I have already suggested one possible routemap in the comments section to the atricle run by WUWT. We will see what those named in that routemap think of the proposal in due course.
My question would be:
Where are the answers to the quite direct and pointed questions (and criticisms) already asked, and which you are perfectly aware of, and avoided by your FAQ-document and 'cooperation' with the RC-team?
All the answers will be in AR5, regardless of the question. /s
Oops duplicate comment
JohnB re "scattergun approach"
I find that phrase objectionable under the circumstancs that existed. I was commenting late on a Sat. Night (US Eastern Standard Time) when Revkin had been stating for at least 7-8 hours that he might close the thread very soon. Whether that meant on Sunday or after Sunday there was no way to judge.
I shared Revkin's request that there be one volunteer to provide such a list, and I certainly hoped it might prove to be Steve Mc (I posted my comment at CA in hopes he might see it soon). There was no way to know whether Steve was even around or available in a Sunday time frame implied by Revkin (if he was about to close the thread), so I had to hope that someone would be willing to take the lead in summarizing outstanding issues and questions from CA if we did not get Steve's attention.
So you can call it a "scattergun approach" if that makes you feel good, but I always stated the suggestion that there should be a volunteer to compile one list. Assuredly I hoped that Steve Mc or Jean S or other CA colleagues could step forward to do it, but there was also the serious risk that Revkin would close his thread, "move on" to other matters, and one more opportunity might be lost.
We still don't know if Revkin will really pursue the matter or if the Marcott authors will actually be responsive (the latter seems most unlikely in light of "Team" history), but I object to the insinuation that getting the info out at 12 midnight on a Sat. Night was "scattergun" if that is supposed to be any pejorative. I suppose I could have gone to sleep without comment, and as many Sundays go in Webworld there might not have been any notice or action (no fault in that, we can't all live in a 24/7 schedule even if the web does).
There are quite a lot of other questions I am curious about, but which aren't appropriate as formal extensions of those already asked. However, I think they would shed more light about the whole Marcott-saga and how it came about. I posted them at Judith Curry's site:
I wonder about the possible timeline of ‘engagement’ by the RealClimate Team ... I would be very surprised if that was the first time they’d learnt about it.
There were more peculiar things happening well before that:
First: The remarkable ‘transformation’ of the holocene reconstruction from Marcott’s thesis chapter (without any sharp blade/uptick) to the now published version,
Second: Which was submitted to (at least) one high profile journal (Science), and how it managed, with all its quite visible problems to get past all the reviewers there.
Third: The media Blitz after publication, and the acclaim it received from other official quarters, and those with notable Hockeystick ideation.
Forth: The scrutiny it recieved, and how this was handled initially, to subsequently be deferred to a forthcoming FAQ-document. Presented some days earlier (as picture file) on Marcott’s hompage. (Again redated to 2012!). To
Fifth: The same FAQ showing up on Real Climate on Easter Sunday, whith a major fraction of the Team vigorously defending it and claiming to speak for the paper and its merits plus the FAQ. And the absence of any of the authors answering questions (either there, or the ones that the FAQ didn’t address).
I think there is more to this story than meets the eye …
@JohnB and others
I completely agree with you. In my mind, there is no question they will ever answer any proper questions regarding the paper. It is simply scientifically indefensible. The danger here is that they are allowed to select the questions, which gives them possibility to give the appearance of giving proper answers although in reality they had completely avoided real problems/questions.
I think the best option is to let Steve to select only a few (five or so) questions, and then let Revkin forward those to the authors (and asking them to answer all of them). I may or may not agree with Steve what are the most important questions, but I'm positive his questions are straight to the point, and more importantly, formulated such that they can not (even in the eyes of Revkin and others) be non-answered by "filibustering" or similar methods.
'What steps have you taken to correct the misrepresentation of your paper in the MSM prompted by your media appearances?'
I do not appreciate the total political naivety on display here. There is nothing to ask. The Science paper is a sad joke with no basis on reality, as demonstrated by the disconnect between all the supporting commentaries and the authors' own statement about the XX century.
I would not ask the authors, or the Real Climate mafia, the time of the day, let alone any detail on how they can keep any moral integrity with such a total rape of science.
What is there to lose in asking questions? A lot of time. And many people's dignity.
Apr 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM | Theo Goodwin
I agree, 100%. As I had written at WUWT, which is where I first saw this:
** To which (after giving the matter even further thought), I would now add:
Revkin had (perhaps somewhat reluctantly?!) already acknowledged that this (non-responsive) FAQ raises questions. I find his new, improved choice of "framing", i.e. questions that are "perceived as unanswered" (my emphasis -hro), to be somewhat disingenuous (if not outright intellectually dishonest).
What is stopping Revkin from actually reading Steve's (by now) relatively long-standing unaddressed questions - and asking why Marcott, Shakun et al have, thus far, failed to engage and/or address them? Surely this would be a more honest, direct (and untainted by his green-heart-on-sleeve bias) approach.
Hilary is right. Revkin is looking for an out.
IMO, these guys know what the problems are, and what tricks they had to perform to get the answers they got. They have no intention of violating the code of the cause. Do not ever expect legitimate answers, only stonewalling and moving on.
Mark
So, Revkin posts an invitation for questions deep in the hundreds of comments on his own blog, while flagging that he is about to close the topic down?
This business of Marcott et al constantly using third parties like Revkin or other friendly blogs to run interference for them instead of engaging directly with the outside world is just plain shonky. FAQs, lists of questions being requested in the dead of night, science by press release - they are behaving more like B grade celebrities with nasty personal habits and tough managers than scientists.
BTW, still no sign of the data or code, I suppose? Perhaps they are the equivalent of the blood tests and police reports.
I think Hilary is close to the mark.
Let me rephrase:
A) Marcott and Shakun publish a dodgy graph and then go on interviews and sanctioning press announcements about the rapidity of 20th Century's temperature climb wiping out thousands of years temperature decline. One of these press releases is Mr. Revkin's.
B) After Steve along with others identify major issues with the graph including splicing on the 20th Century high frequency temperature series; then Marcott and team announce that they will release a FAQ to answer the many many questions regarding their research.
C) Eventually the FAQ is released; actually the FAQ is published at a new site (realclimate comment deletion site) instead of at the publication site where the paper is published. The FAQ does an amazing amount of tap dancing and avoids answering all of the major questions.
D) The RC team seeks to utilize the climate team mind meld to make up answers for Marcott and Shakun to questions people keep insisting on asking. The RC team keep moaning that they wish Marcott and Shakun should stop by and answer the questions themselves... Yeah, right! Then take down the FAQ until Marcott and Shakun publish their FAQ officially!
E) Problems with the Marcott and Shakun paper continue to arise even though the trolls, trollettes and Climate reactionary teams are frantically insisting all questions are answered or debunked. Revkin has begun to see the light after getting hit persistently with the issues.
D) Revkin proposes using his site for a question central repository. While Skiphil thinks this is urgent, important and that the opportunity may pass; I think Skiphil is overlooking how much the whole situation stinks!
D continued) The situation stinks because with Revkin's offer there will be three semi-official/official sites for Marcott and Shakun research information.
I agree it is time for Steve Mcintyre to list up his questions; but the place to submit the questions is not realclimate nor Revkin's; it is to the publishing house itself. The questions should be blunt and noted that the world awaits at ClimateAudit and WUWT for the official publishing of the answers. Official as directly alongside of the original paper. The questions should be listed exactly as submitted by Steve and then responded to point by point with an answer summary. There are far too many examples in the supposed FAQ where imaginary questions are asked or questions framed so the response does not get to the heart of the matter.
Sure it is nice of Mr. Revkin to make his offer. I just don't trust him or any of the climate team flunkies/bullies as far as their leashes let them wander.
Now I see I just echoed Johanna's comment too. Only I used a lot more words than what she summed up so well.
Here's a question for Marcott et al.:
Is the "hide the decline" philosophy of global warming alarmists correlated to their small penises?
Here's another one:
Do global warming alarmists hate Canadians or do they just hate Steve McIntyre for using facts and logic to show them for the nincompoops that they are?
And here's a joke riddle for Marcott et al.:
Why did the hockey stick cross the road?
To get off Mann's powerpoint slide.
"until Marcott and Shakun publish their FAQ officially"
Never underestimate the creativiness of these people. I recall someone mentioning that a blog post would not be good enough for the IPCC purposes. Well, I did some searching, and noticed that the FAQ is also posted at Marcott's site. So I think the FAQ at RC is only an "unofficial copy" while the one in Marcott's site counts as the "official one" (of course, you can not comment there). So now they can add whatever they wish to the copy at RC, but still keep the "official FAQ" untouched for the IPCC etc. purposes. BTW, why on Earth it is posted as an image?
Technical questions are well covered buy those far better qualified than me. And also far better qualified than Revkin. Which is a problem.
Can Revkin use questions that he reasonably suspects he won't be able to have answered at his level?
So I would ask about the press release. The press release is the only reason people noticed this paper so quickly. It would have missed the AR5 deadline without the press release. And the press release emphasised the uptick.
Ask, “Who authorised the press release?”
“Were you consulted as to the nature of the press release?”
“The press release didn’t emphasise that the uptick was not robust,, do you regret that?”
Technical questions are well covered buy those far better qualified than me. And also far better qualified than Revkin. Which is a problem.
Can Revkin use questions that he reasonably suspects he won't be able to have answered at his level?
So I would ask about the press release. The press release is the only reason people noticed this paper so quickly. It would have missed the AR5 deadline without the press release. And the press release emphasised the uptick.
Ask, “Who authorised the press release?”
“Were you consulted as to the nature of the press release?”
“The press release didn’t emphasise that the uptick was not robust,, do you regret that?”
jean S:
Exactly! Though, I wouldn't consider Marcott's site an official point of release; especially as Lewandowsky keeps his sham papers up on his site when they undergo retraction steps at the release site. where the paper was officially published as peer (cough!) reviewed research is the only 'official' home. Not that I expect that publisher to give a fig about erroneous or fabricated research; but to try and establish research problems anywhere else just serves for the CAGW team's advantage.
Images are darn hard to import/edit/copy/paste/hack and otherwise alter without being quickly spotted. When someone doesn't want their 'text' to be easily copied they put it out in an image format. Don't be fooled by it is easier claims.
I, personally, wouldn't call it 'creativeness'. That's a term used by one of my bosses when he didn't want someone to get prosecuted. And it always rankled me when he'd protect someone who flat lied, by terming it as 'creative language' or 'creative imagination'.
Creativeness, deviousness, obfuscation or just plain malfeasance; it doesn't matter, keep hammering the official publication site! Do not be distracted by the misdirection 'here, over here' ploys to keep skeptics from pointing out major flaws without definitive answers/explanations that are bothering so many of us.
No-one but Marcott, Shakun and co-authors can provide answers!! They are the only ones accountable for the research, analysis, publication, press releases and follow-ups to their published paper!
As a layman with no experience of the academic publishing industry but extensive experience in the publishing of newspapers, magazines, etc, I would expect the publishers of Marcott et al to bear the responsibility for the quality control that was applied to this paper by those who were employed/volunteered as expert reviewers of this paper.
If publishers decline to accept responsibility for the quality of the reviewers and their work, what is the actual point of peer review?
At this moment, the flaws in the paper by Marcott et al, plus the incredibly silly papers recently sighted from Lewendowsky et al suggests to me that academic publishers regard themselves as having licence to publish without responsibility.