McKintyre & McKitrick publish again ! - sci.environment

Message from discussion McKintyre & McKitrick publish again !

Lloyd Parker

View profile

More options Feb 3 2005, 4:55 am

Newsgroups: sci.environment

From: lpar...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)

Date: Thu, 03 Feb 05 09:55:44 GMT

Local: Thurs, Feb 3 2005 4:55 am

Subject: Re: McKintyre & McKitrick publish again !

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

In article <1107432933.356529.109...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"peroxisome" <peroxis...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>>I've said its unimportant. How can I do this?
>>Ita all thanks to (ta-da!) RealClimate folks, yes just read:

>I think it says something about your science, that you are prepared to
>take the word of a (frankly abusive) blog, rather than a peer-reviewed
>journal. You cannot therefore even know if the blog even accurately
>sets out what is in the GRL paper !

LOL! You denialists cite John Daly, CO2 science, SEEP, Lomborg, Cato
Institute, etc. When we direct you to the scientific journals, you ignore
them.

>I will say that the Mann & Schmidt comment on real climate makes
>several statements which I believe to be factually incorrect.

And your qualifications to make this judgment are?

>>So MM05 are still hashing over the now-obsolete MBH98.

>An interesting choice of words
>>Even in the unlikely even of MM being correct, it *doesn't
>>matter* because things have advanced since then.

>I have to say I am thoroughly fascinated by your approach to science.
>You are saying it *doesn't matter* if MM show that MBH'98 (and hence
>'99) is defective, and it has to be withdrawn. MM's specific charge is
>that when you do the calculations properly with MBH's data set, you get
>a warmer 15 century than MBH found. So you are accepting this is
>correct, and still it *doesn't matter*.

>You and I differ. I think that facts -or data- are quite important.
>yours
>per

Reply to author Forward