|2011-02-02 07:28:44||Monckton and the Arctic|
Hey all, |
I was wondering if you guys could give me some feedback on the following:
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!
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.
"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.