I try to be accurate in my commentary, If you think that my commentary has been inaccurate, I’d appreciate it if you would direct me to specific errors so that I can make appropriate corrections.
My criticisms of the proxy reconstructions here have been detailed and technical. My opinion on the lack of worth of the canonical reconstructions is based on my assessment of their technical and statistical defects, not on “innuendo and smear”.
Here’s a small start at responding to his post. I invite others to add to it.
Steve, just looking at your post on the Nursery, I see lots of evidence. Here, for example:
I haven’t heard of any incidents in which anyone requested “drafts of scientific papers prior to their publication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive version”, let alone “lots of requests” of this nature to multiple scientists.
Are any readers aware of any such requests? Or is this more fantasizing by climate scientists? Like the time reversal mechanism assumed by Nature when they blamed data obstruction by climate scientists back in 2005 on FOI requests in summer 2009.
This is an example of what I call the “If I didn’t see it, or my clique hasn’t mentioned it, it didn’t happen” fallacy falsely equating the ego with the whole world.
For someone who claims to keep their commentary accurate and technical, this seems to fail that standard by a long shot. It’s ridiculous on its face — as if the claim made by Nurse is proven/disproven by whether you or your readers are aware of any requests…
Second — technical? Accurate? The suggestion that “climate scientists” as a group engage in “fantasizing” on a regular basis hardly seems “technical” but rather to be opinion and a general attack on the whole group with only one reference to any evidence.
You follow that up with another example when speaking of climate scientists obstructing access to data. Again, you provide no evidence, present opinion as fact, and are less than precise in your terminology. Not very technical.
A technical commentary would be detailed and specify which climate scientists you mean, would provide evidence rather than referring to the entire discipline in nebulous terms and without data to back it up. I realize you have repeatedly discussed this before, but at least you could attach a link to where you do provide technical commentary…
That’s just the “Nursery” post which was short. I found more on the Wegman thread as well, but I won’t bother detailing them here. But it’s a great project.
So everyone — please, have at it. Post your examples of where CA posts have failed the accurate, technical and detailed test.
I’d have posted my response at CA, but I thought it would start a flame war and so decided to do it here instead.