2011-02-02 07:28:44Monckton and the Arctic
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
Hey all,
I was wondering if you guys could give me some feedback on the following:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic_Temperature_Change.html

Cheers.

Robert Way
2011-02-02 08:51:53
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

Maybe mention how a reanalysis works?

 

I know you've done it before, but the article doesn't stand on its own - even scientists from other fields might not know what one is!

 

 

Also, you messed up your italics!

2011-02-02 08:54:50
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.80

Good to have this rebuttal too.

"This post should be the definitive answer". Well, maybe it's a bit overstated ;)

In table 1 you ordered the years by anomaly, not viceversa.

irrelevant: you didn't close the italics tag after the caption in fig. 1.

2011-02-02 09:32:46
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.204

"This argument is brought forth by Lord Monckton in April of 2009":

I would not introduce him in such a respectful way. I think "Christopher Monckton" is perfectly adequate; if you want to stick on titles, add them parenthetically:  "(Viscount of Brenchly)". I don't know about Canadians, but Americans are suckers for titled nobility. I don't see any reason to play into that.

 

"Monckton provides no evidence that he conducted an Arctic-wide analysis of air temperatures but rather seems to suggest that he selected a few stations which supported his narrative rather than examining all of the evidence."

=>  "Monckton provides no evidence that he conducted an Arctic-wide analysis of air temperatures but his presentation gives the impression that he selected a few stations which support his narrative, rather than examining all of the evidence."

I am sure that the last thing that Monckton would suggest is that he is cherry-picking: rather, he's trying to hide that from the reader. You only notice by studying his data points, not because he tells you.